Preamble

The House met at half-past

Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CAMBRIDGE, READING AND WALSALL)

Bill to confirm Provisional Orders of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to the City of Cambridge and the county boroughs of Reading and Walsall, presented by Mr. Richard Crossman; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Housing and Local Government relating to the West Kent Main Sewerage District, presented by Mr. Richard Crossman; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

West Cardiganshire (Transport Survey)

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will recommend to the Welsh Economic Council that the Clayton Survey on transport conditions in West Cardiganshire should be extended so as to cover the whole of the county.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. George Thomas): No, Sir; this would not be practicable within the limited time-scale of this survey.

Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that transport conditions in the eastern half of Cardiganshire are exactly as they are in the western half of Cardiganshire? There is every reason why this survey should be held for the whole county, even though that (night mean delaying it for a further short period?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. This is merely a pilot study of a typical area, which would be typical not only of the rest of Cardiganshire but of other rural areas.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the terms of reference given by the Welsh Economic Council to Professor Clayton's study group in their proposed survey of transport conditions in West Cardiganshire; and if he will give an assurance that particular attention will be given in this study to the question of rural omnibus services in the area concerned.

Mr. George Thomas: I am circulating the terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The survey will give full attention to all means of transport in the area, including rural bus services.

Mr. Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he pay particular attention to the Jack Report of 1961, which found that between 15,000 and 20,000 people in mid-Cardiganshire were not served by any public services at all, and to the fact that this position has been greatly worsened by the closure of rural bus services in recent months?

Mr. Thomas: The whole point of the pilot survey is to enable us to use our resources in the best way to help the county. I am aware of the serious problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Hooson: Is not the Minister of State aware that there have been several surveys of bus services, and allied transport problems in rural areas, in Wales amongst other places? Is it not time that the Government acted in this matter and provided a subsidy so that the people do really have a bus service?

Mr. Thomas: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are taking into account all the evidence and are determined to have as good as service as possible.

Following are the terms of reference:

(1) to examine and assess the pattern of transport in the area west of a line drawn approximately from Aberystwyth to Carmarthen taking into account through flows of traffic;
(2) to consider how, through the integration and rationalisation of services, the optimum allocation of resources to the provision of transport in the area might be attained;
(3) to prepare an interim report by the end of July and a final report not later than the end of September.

Cwmbran New Town (Exhibition)

Mr. Leo Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is aware of public concern that issues of policy are being decided by an official of the Cwmbran Development Corporation without reference to the members of the board; and whether he will give a direction that no official of the corporation in his public capacity will express controversial political opinions purported to be made on behalf of the board to the constituents of the hon. Member for Pontypool.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is aware of the concern of residents of Cwmbran New Town about a decision taken by an official of the corporation refusing permission for an exhibition to be staged in the town centre; whether he will give a direction to officials of new town development corporations concerning their discretionary power; and whether he will further require officials in their public capacity to refrain from an expression of their political views to the constituents of the hon. Member for Monmouth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ifor Davies): This is a matter for the corporation and not one on which my right hon. Friend can issue a direction.

Mr. Abse: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? The official concerned—zealous, enthusiastic and dedicated as he is to his work—has written to the politically mature constituents in my area in a way which is not only politically naïve but which they find politically offensive? It is surely the duty of the Minister to control officials so that they do not indulge in public political controversy?

Mr. Davies: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend fully appro. ciates the concern of my hon. Friend in this matter, but there is no provision under the New Towns Act whereby my right hon. Friend can issue directions concerning the duties or conduct of officials of the corporation. The corporation is responsible for the appointment of staff, including the general manager, and the conduct of officials is essentially a matter for the corporation.

Tourist Industry

Mr. Birch: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to offset the effects on the tourist industry in North Wales of the Selective Employment Tax and the withdrawal of investment allowances.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): Apart from the grant to the British Travel Association, the industry will benefit from the raising of initial allowances from 10 to 30 per cent. and the building grants that will be available throughout the new development area. I hope also that it will benefit in due course from the Exchequer-aided research work being done by the Wales Tourist and Holidays Association.

Mr. Birch: Does the right hon. Gentle. man appreciate that most of the North Wales hotels are not in the Welsh development area at all, and does he realise that the effect of the withdrawal of investment allowances and Selective Employment Tax is positively to invite people in this country to take holidays abroad and to invite people abroad not to take holidays in this country?

Mr. Hughes: I agree that some hotels are not in the area, but a large number are. I fully appreciate the importance of the tourist industry not only in North Wales but in mid-Wales and a large part of South Wales as well. It is too soon yet to judge the precise effect of this tax on particular industries and in particular areas.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon Gentleman may think that it is too early, but is it not clear from the evidence already coming from these areas that the burden of the Selective Employment Tax is being heavily felt by all parts of the


tourist industry? Does not he understand how much it is resented?

Mr. Hughes: The burden of this proposed tax cannot possibly be felt yet. The hon. Gentleman must realise that tourism is helped in other ways. We shall be watching carefully to see what transpires during the next few months.

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has for encouraging the Welsh tourist industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Wales Tourist and Holidays Association is engaged on a research programme into the facilities now available and the future of the industry. A progress report is expected shortly.

Mr. Gower: Will the Secretary of State treat this as a matter of urgency? Is he aware that the Selective Employment Tax and the withdrawal of investment allowances could have a deplorable effect on many parts of Wales which are more than generally dependent on tourists?

Mr. Hughes: I do not take the dismal view which the hon. Gentleman takes, but I am aware of the importance of the work which the research unit is doing. It started its work in April, 1965, and is engaged on a three-year programme. We shall await the outcome with great interest.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: We fully recognise that the Secretary of State has not long held his office, but will he appreciate that there are many people concerned about the future of the tourist industry? We hope that we shall not have to wait three years for some efforts from him.

Mr. Hughes: We are aware of the importance of the tourist industry to the Principality. What I said was that the research unit is engaged on work which would take three years. It will be producing progress reports, and I am now awaiting such a progress report. I am anxious also to meet the officials of the Tourist Board to see what, if anything, can be done in the meantime.

Welsh Economic Council (Panels)

Mr. Probert: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many panels have been set up by the Welsh Economic

Council; how many have reported; and what action has resulted.

Mr. George Thomas: Five, all of which have submitted at least interim reports to the Council. The Council, in turn. has advised the Government.

Mr. Probed: Will my hon. Friend consider publishing these reports in full, or, if not, could he publish the main conclusions?

Mr. Thomas: It is not the present intention to publish these reports. They are given to the Council, which is an advisory body and which in turn advises the Minister. I undertake to look at the suggestion which my hon. Friend made in the latter part of his supplementary question.

Secretary of State for Wales (General Powers)

Mr. Probed: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the way in which he exercises his general powers of oversight in Wales in cases where he has no direct responsibility.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I do this through my membership of the Cabinet, the monthly conferences of heads of Government Departments in Wales, the machinery of the Welsh Planning Board and day-to-day consultations with all Departments on particular issues.

Mr. Probed: But is my right hon. Friend completely satisfied that in matters affecting the well-being of the Welsh people he has an effective voice in policy decisions, notably in respect of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir. As in all forms of consultation and co-operation of a rather informal character, everything depends on how well one uses them. I have arranged for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to take a direct interest in the exercise of all these oversight functions, including liaison with the Board of Trade, which is of vital importance at present.

Local Government Reorganisation (White Paper)

Mr. E. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish the White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation in Wales.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope to publish this White Paper before the end of the year.

Mr. Rowlands: Does my right hon. Friend feel that he can still carry out the radical reorganisation of local government in Wales before the Royal Commission on Local Government for the rest of the country has conducted its investigation, as the Royal Commission might, perhaps, make recommendations on new functions or the financing of local government which affected boundary changes in Wales?

Mr. Hughes: I have taken the same view on this as previous Administrations. My hon. Friend will remember that there was a separate Local Government Commission for Wales and, when the then Minister of Housing and Local Government decided that he would not accept the Commission's Report, he told the House on 26th February, 1964, that he would put forward in a White Paper his own proposals for Wales. In view of all the work which has been done since then and the urgency of the situation in Wales, it would be wrong to stop the work of the working party until the Royal Commission has reported.

Mr. Gower: As the problems of local government in England and Scotland have merited the detailed attention of Royal Commissions, how is it possible in Wales to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion without such an investigation?

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman attaches undue weight to what a Royal Commission can do. A good deal of work has been done by Local Government Boundary Commissions composed of very eminent Welshmen, and the working party has been studying this for a very long time. What I am saying is that, in view of the work which has been done and the volume of information amassed, I should proceed with the publication of a White Paper before the end of this year. This I propose to do.

Redundancies, South Wales

Mr. E. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate has been made of redundancies expected in South Wales during the next five years; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomas: Although it is subject to a wide margin of error, it has been estimated that, if the expanding industries do not grow faster than in recent years, the excess of labour supply over demand in South Wales could increase by some 30,000 by 1971. The Government are, of course, stimulating faster growth to prevent any such increase, and I am glad to say that industry is finding South Wales an attractive location.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister fully satisfied that the programme to encourage industry in South Wales will be sufficient to meet the needs of this very large number of redundant men who will come out in the next five years?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly hope so. The Government are going all out to ensure that the gifts of the Welsh people are fully used and that full employment is the lot of our people.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: We shall, of course, welcome faster growth and productivity in Wales, and we shall welcome it when we see it in South Wales. Why is it possible for the Minister to give these figures today when it was totally impossible in the National Plan to give figures regarding Welsh redundancies?

Mr. Thomas: I have given figures which have been reached by the Employment and Industry Panel. They are the mean of its estimates. I have tried to help the House by giving a clear picture. I am confident that we shall see substantial growth in South Wales.

Iron Ore Terminal, South Wales

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further communications he has had from Richard Thomas and Baldwin in connection with the siting of the second iron ore terminal in South Wales.

Mr. George Thomas: My right hon. Friend has received from Richard Thomas and Baldwin copies of the documents submitted to the National Ports Council in support of its proposals for an impounded basin at Uskmouth.

Rural Depopulation

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to seek further consultations with the


Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association to make plans for alleviating rural depopulation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My department is in close and frequent touch with the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association on all aspects of the problems of this area.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Has the Secretary of State already received from the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association any reaction to the Selective Employment Tax, and, if so, will he tell us what it has said about this brutal, blunt instrument of taxation?

Mr. Hughes: I have received no such report. I shall not refer today to the many brutal and blunt actions taken by the hon. Gentleman's own Government during their 13 years.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to my information, the greatest present need in mid-Wales appears to be the need for further housing? Is he in close touch with the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association in order to have its views and help in this direction?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir. I think that there will be developments over the next few months in this direction.

Coal Depot, Whitchurch

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, in view of opposition by residents at Whitchurch, near Cardiff, to a proposal by British Railways to establish a coal depot near College Road, Whitchurch, alongside a residential area mostly developed during the last 15 years, he will use his powers to protect the interests of the local residents.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The proposal, so far as it required planning approval, was a matter for the local planning authority. My right hon. Friend sees no grounds for intervening.

Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently a business man was refused permission to have an office in his house because it would destroy the amenities of the area, yet at the same time British Railways are creating a coal depot on the very doorsteps of these houses? Is not this an absurdity, and will

he make representations to British Railways to protect the amenities of these people?

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Railways Board, which is the responsible body in this case, together with the local authorities concerned, will see to it that the depot is run with proper regard to the amenities of the people living in the area.

Mr. Gower: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Anti-social Attitudes (ResearchProjects)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiative he is taking to promote schemes calculated to identify the sources of future delinquency and to change antisocial attitudes in children in secondary schools.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The Schools Council has a great deal of work in hand in connection with the raising of the school-leaving age which will contribute to these objectives. In addition I am contributing to five research projects designed, among other things, to shed light on these problems. The total cost of these projects is about £200,000.

Mr. Iremonger: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and urge him to pursue this in the light of the certain fact that the root and heart of the problem of crime in modern society lies in his Department and not in that of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my right hon. Friend think that a change in antisocial attitudes might be furthered by the introduction of carefully planned programmes on the television rather than all the sex and violence programmes to which teen-agers are subjected?

Mr. Crosland: I believe that we do not know nearly enough for certain about


exactly what the causes of these antisocial attitudes are. It is only a minority of the children who have them, but we are all disturbed and puzzled about the causes. The best thing we can do is to encourage research in all directions we can.

Pre-school Play Groups

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now announce his proposals for assistance to pre-school play groups.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): My right hon. Friend has agreed to pay a grant of £3,000 a year for three years to the National Association of Pre-school Play Groups towards their headquarters expenses, including the salary of an adviser.

Mr. Dean: I welcome that information, but does the Minister of State realise that many of these groups find considerable difficulty in starting operations? If he accepts that they are fulfilling a valuable function, will he ensure that more help is available to them?

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has no legal power to assist individual play groups, which do not come within the scope of the Education Acts.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of the grant made by his Department to the National Association of Pre-school Play Groups, he will make it a condition that the Association should make its member groups open to inspection by the officers of his Department.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend has no power to make such a condition. One of Her Majesty's Inspectors is in close touch with the National Association and the purpose of the grant is to enable the Association itself to provide expert advice and guidance to its members.

Miss Lestor: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern of the National Association of Pre-school Play Groups at the lack of guidance from his Department? Will he consider making some greater form of voluntary advice available to individual groups?

Mr. Redhead: One of the purposes of the grant is to help the National Association itself to provide that advice. I am anxious to encourage pre-school play groups and will consider the point made by my hon. Friend.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has said that the grant is £3,000. Has he any estimate as to how much that will be reduced as a result of the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be related to the Question on the Order Paper.

Secondary Education (Reorganisation)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have informed him that they do not intend to accept the proposals of Circular 10/65 on the organisation of secondary education.

Mr. Crosland: Two, Sir: Bournemouth and Westmorland.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of concern among parents in areas where the local education authorities have rejected the principle of the circular and that there is the feeling, justified or otherwise, that certain local education authorities have rejected the principle because of political spite against the Government?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the strong feelings among parents in these areas, but what is significant is the tiny number of local education authorities which have declined to send in plans. The vast majority of the 162 authorities in England and Wales are actively engaged in preparing plans for comprehensive reorganisation.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give sympathetic consideration to all replies from local education authorities embodying proposals that are genuinely designed to extend secondary opportunity in accordance with the needs of their areas?

Mr. Crosland: I shall give most sympathetic attention to any plan which comes to me and seems to be within the principle of Circular 10/65.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for increasing the capital allocation to local education authorities developing secondary education on a comprehensive line.

Mr. Crosland: None for a special capital allocation. But the very large building programmes already allocated to meet the demands of a growing school population, new housing and the raising of the school leaving age will of course indirectly assist the needs of secondary reorganisation.

Mrs. Short: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a great many local education authorities looking forward to this educational advance are finding considerable difficulty because of the legacy they inherited from the period when the party opposite was in power, such as continual cuts in the school building programme and the large numbers of small secondary schools built? In reorganising the school programme, they are finding great difficulty in bringing these small secondary schools up to the level of viable comprehensive education. Is my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must learn to make her supplementary questions concise. There is enough to answer.

Mr. Crosland: Whether it is concise or not, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the substance of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The huge legacy of small and old secondary buildings makes reorganisation harder than it would otherwise have been. That is why local education authorities are bound to use a good deal of ingenuity in fitting reorganisation into this pattern of building, but I make it clear again that if we were to make a special capital allocation for going comprehensive, this could only be at the expense of replacing or improving slum primary schools, and that I am not prepared to accept.

Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear—and we welcome his statement—that he will give primary school improvements priority over proposals for comprehensive development when there is adequate secondary accommodation available. But can he tell the

House how much has been approved by the Government for school improvements over and above the £250 million that we approved for this purpose during the 1959-64 Parliament?

Mr. Crosland: Apart from providing new schools for additional numbers of children, the primary school buildings must have priority. I have also made it clear—and here the right hon. Gentleman did not agree during the election—that any new secondary school built must be consistent with possible comprehensive reorganisation schemes.

Building Programmes

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he proposes to take to ensure that there will be no reduction in work carried out under the 1966-67 major and minor building programmes owing to increased costs of construction following the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend expects to be able to make an announcement soon about cost limits for school building.

Mr. Astor: Does that mean the Secretary of State is considering increasing the present allocation, for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government says that one effect of the Selective Employment Tax will be to increase construction costs by about 2 per cent.?

Mr. Redhead: Obviously it is the practice of the Department to review cost limits whenever circumstances make it necessary to do so. In the present situation, the S.E.T. is one of the factors we are taking into account.

Teaching Aids

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to assist every local education authority to make provision for at least one pilot scheme for programmed learning, educational television, and language laboratories in its own area.

Mr. Crosland: Almost all local education authorities are already using teaching aids of these kinds. I am anxious to encourage these developments through the Educational Foundation for Visual


Aids and by other means, although it must be left to each authority to decide what particular lines it wishes to follow.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. But is it not true to say that for the expenditure of a small sum of money he could get the pool of knowledge on the use of this method much more widely scattered throughout every authority with a little more push by his Department?

Mr. Crosland: We have no means by which we can directly financially assist local authorities to use these aids, but in spreading knowledge of them a lot of work is being done by the Educational Foundation for Visual Aids. The Department has put out a number of research projects to study these things and Her Majesty's Inspectors are both encouraging and watching developments in each local authority area.

Sir C. Osborne: If a pool of knowledge is widely scattered, does it not cease to be a pool?

Teachers' Superannuation (Widows)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science it he will amend the regulations regarding teachers' superannuation to give widows with young children the same rights as married women in relation to qualifying service for pension.

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend will consider this matter in preparing the teachers' superannuation regulations under the Teachers Superannuation Act, 1965.

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he indicate when this consideration will take place?

Mr. Redhead: The regulations are of complicated character and are bound to take some months to prepare, but it is hoped that they will be in force by April next.

Mr. Berry: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will introduce legislation to extend the pension scheme for teachers' widows to cover widows of teachers who died before the passing of the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1965.

Mr. Redhead: No, Sir. Further retrospection would adversely affect the Teachers' Family Benefits Fund, which will be financed entirely by teachers' contributions.

Mr. Berry: Would the Minister not agree that there are some elderly teachers' widows who are suffering greatly through not being included? Does his answer tally with the Labour Party manifesto which said that they would strive to alleviate poverty among old people?

Mr. Redhead: I think that the hon. Gentleman should take note of the fact that the Act introduced last year was a substantial improvement on the situation which had previously existed. Some line had to be drawn, and there are always problems when one draws lines when dealing with retrospective legislation.

Nursery Schools

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he now has for the expansion of nursery school facilities.

Mr. Crosland: I am encouraging local education authorities to establish new nursery classes wherever they can show that this will enable more qualified married women teachers to return to service. I will study the forthcoming reports of the Central Advisory Councils of Education before reaching any wider conclusions about the expansion of nursery education.

Miss Lestor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the provision of educational facilities for the under-fives is rapidly becoming the monopoly of the private and often unqualified sector? Does he not consider that this development is likely to be detrimental to the interests of the under-fives?

Mr. Crosland: I am aware of that, and I am also aware that everybody in the House, I think, would greatly welcome a large expansion of nursery provision for the under-fives if this were possible. Whether it will be possible or not will depend partly on funds available. Apart from that, as the Plowden Council is expected to report during the summer and this is within their terms of reference, I think that we should wait for their report before making any further decision.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the response which he has received so far from local education authorities in reply to his very welcome circular about setting up nursery classes?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, I am not satisfied. Therefore, a good deal of prodding is going on.

Mr. Hornby: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any progress report on increases in the recruitment of teachers arising out of the experiments started by my right hon. Friend with regard to nursery provision?

Mr. Crosland: That is a different question and I should like to have notice of it.

University Teachers (Pay)

Dr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the new award to doctors means that the differential between the pay of university teachers teaching medical subjects and those teaching other disciplines will be still further increased.

Mr. Crosland: The pay scales for university clinical academic staff will be determined in the light of the movement of salaries of university teachers generally, the recent award to doctors and the advice given to the Government by the University Grants Committee.

Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the existing differentiation causes great anger and indignation among all academics not teaching medical subjects? Will he initiate discussions with the appropriate trade union, the Association of University Teachers, to see whether it can be reduced?

Mr. Crosland: I am to have the pleasure of attending the annual dinner of the Association of University Teachers tonight, where I do not doubt that I shall hear more about this. I am aware that this is a rather angry and indignant world generally, but I still prefer not to go beyond what I have already said.

The Arts (Regional Associations)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in establishing

regional associations of local authorities and industry for the support of the arts.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): The North-Eastern Association for the Arts, which my hon. Friend did so much to promote, and the Lincolnshire Association go on from strength to strength and enjoy considerable support from both local authorities and industry. There is also a South-West Arts Association and a Midlands Arts Association; a further eight are in various stages of development.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would my hon. Friend agree to take some further positive action to encourage developments of this sort, as it seems a sensible way of trying to get more active co-operation between local authorities and industry in this respect?

Miss Lee: I entirely agree. In this respect, we leave the initiative to come a great deal from the local communities, because we feel that when the initiative comes from their end something genuine develops, and that this is preferable to artificial stimulus from the centre.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the hon. Lady realise the damage which the arts have suffered from the Selective Employment Tax, and is she not ashamed?

Miss Lee: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed.

National Youth Orchestra

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action is being taken to ensure the continuance of the National Youth Orchestra.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now make a statement on the future of the National Youth Orchestra.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Department is to make the orchestra a grant of £8,000 in the current financial year. That, along with its own resources, will enable it to resume activities immediately, and auditions will be held again in September.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a good deal of satisfaction in the country that this most


successful enterprise will be continued with her help?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the hon. Lady aware that the adequacy of this amount will bring profound relief that something has been done at last? As she knows, we have been waiting a long time.

University Diploma Courses (Nursing Administration)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to secure an increased provision of university diploma courses in nursing administration.

Mr. Redhead: Universities decide for themselves what courses to offer, in the light of national needs. In this field these are a matter for consideration by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend consider the woeful inadequacy of only one university at present providing such a course, with another planned for next year, in the light of the Salmon Comittee's Report, which may well be adopted by the Minister of Health? Will lie institute a crash programme so that the nurses can have the professional status which they deserve?

Mr. Redhead: It is my understanding that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is at present considering a report on the senior nursing staff structure, including the future provision of training facilities in nursing administration. Questions on the more detailed aspects of the present provision would be more correctly addressed to the Minister of Health.

Secondary School Education (11-Plus)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what time limit he has set for the submission of plans by local authorities to end selection at 11-plus for schools.

Mr. Crosland: 12th July this year.

Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to uncertainty in the minds of certain local authorities, some have been encouraged to refuse or have indicated their unwillingness to end selec-

tion at 11-plus or, in other cases, to postpone it indefinitely?

Mr. Crosland: As I said in answer to an earlier Question, only two authorities have informed me that they do not propose to submit plans. I still think that what is remarkable is how small this number is and how high a level of cooperation we are achieving with the great majority of local authorities.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is not the question of a time limit in this respect a matter of request? It is a year after the date of the official circular and there is no statutory or legal force in the limit. Are not some local authorities bound to take longer because the nature of their problems is more complex than those of some other local education authorities?

Mr. Crosland: Certainly, that would be the case in some areas. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have allowed six authorities an extension of time. Where some genuine case is put to us between now and 12th July, we shall, of course, consider it on its merits.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the key to the question is precisely the application of more money for the building of comprehensive schools—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Question about the time limit. Supplementary questions must be related to the original Question.

Mr. Heffer: But it is related, because I am relating it to the time limit. There cannot be a time limit if there is no understanding of when the schools will be built to carry out the job.

Mr. Crosland: I have answered that Question already. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was."] He was. I have pointed out that, of course, a considerable part of the enormous school building programme which we authorised is capable of adaptation to comprehensive reorganisation, and that any additional special allocation on top of that could only be at the expense of the improvement and replacement of primary schools. I must insist that, apart from roofs over heads, primary schools ought to have priority in the building programme.

School Fees (Selective EmploymentTax)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his proposals for offsetting the rise in school fees paid or contributed to by local education authorities which will result from the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax on education.

Mr. Redhead: The Government are considering this matter.

Mr. Hill: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the more one looks at the problem of the likely effect of the Selective Employment Tax on education, the more it seems to be inequitable and unfair as between one authority and another, one parent and another and one school and another?

Mr. Redhead: If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the distinction between the application of the tax to the maintained sector and to the independent, direct grant and non-maintained special schools, he will, of course, know that most of the latter are already classified as charities and that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has indicated the Government's consideration of that aspect.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will bear in mind the clear evidence of the need for more boarding places for those being educated in the State sector? Is it not a serious feature of the tax that it will hit particularly hard boarding schools with their necessarily more lavish staffing?

Mr. Redhead: I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in that connection.

Sports Facilities

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now issue a circular to all local education authorities setting out advice on the joint provision of sports facilities for educational and community use.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): The Circular issued jointly by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Department of Education and Science in August 1964 set

out the policy about joint provision, and I am glad to reaffirm this principle. The officers of the two Departments are always ready to discuss and advise upon detailed proposals. I expect the regional sports councils to give close attention to ensuring that local authorities provide for joint provision of sports facilities.

Mr. Rose: Is my hon. Friend aware that a further circular, devoted entirely to this topic, would be of great assistance in overcoming the reluctance of some local authorities? Would he stress in particular the need for this in all future productions?

Mr. Howell: I think that a further circular would be premature, at least until we have completed the survey of our national sports facilities. Meantime I hope that some practical schemes can be encouraged which will probably do more than another circular at this stage.

Free School Milk

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the present basis for the supply of free school milk.

Mr. Crosland: These matters are of course continuously under review, but I do not have it in mind to make any changes at present.

Mr. Marten: While appreciating that Answer, may I ask the Minister if he is quite satisfied that milk is at all times of the year the best way to use our resources for these children? Would not fruit be better for them.

Mr. Crosland: This is a matter on which I have the continuous benefit of medical views. It is interesting that in infant and junior schools the take-up of free milk is well into the 90 per cent. area, and I am absolutely certain that the free milk scheme fulfils an important social and medical function. Possibly the more controversial part of the scheme is in secondary schols, where the take-up is a great deal lower, being just over 60 per cent.

Youth and Sports Organisations (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what study and what financial


estimate he has made of the effect and cost of the Selective Employment Tax on national voluntary sports organisations;
(2) what study and what financial estimate he has made of the effect and cost of the Selective Employment Tax on national voluntary youth organisations.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend is aware of the impact of this tax upon voluntary youth and sport organisations, but no precise estimate of the total cost is available.

Mr. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman say what representations he has made for exemptions of sports and voluntary youth organisations? Would he not agree that youth organisations are carrying out work which otherwise would have to be done by the State, and that they are worthy of special consideration?

Mr. Howell: I do not think that it would be right for me to disclose what discussions are going on within the Government, but the hon. Gentleman can be certain that all these considerations are in the mind of Ministers in our Department.

Independent Schools (Overseas Pupils)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the numbers of children from overseas countries at present attending independent schools in this country.

Mr. Redhead: I can make no estimate.

Mr. Hill: Ought not the Minister to attempt to get these figures since the number of children is a significant proportion, approaching 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. of the total? Does he not accept that when parents in foreign countries wish their children to go abroad for education it is desirable that they should come to Britain? Is it not a pity to injure the schools and deter parents through discriminatory taxation?

Mr. Redhead: My right hon. Friend already asks independent schools to inform him of the number and ages of their pupils. So far it has not been found necessary to ask them for further detailed

information about their pupils. There is a limit to the number of requests which one can make for statistical purposes.

University Entrance

40 Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek to hold discussions with universities about their regulations concerning university entrance, with a view to taking steps to alter them.

Mr. Crosland: Each university is responsible for its own admissions procedure. My hon. Friend will be glad to know, however, that the universities have formed a Standing Conference on University Entrance which is concerned with academic entrance requirements and has indeed already arranged for these to be considerably simplified. It consults regularly with the Schools Council.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend consider injecting into the administration of the universities some real public control?

Mr. Crosland: That goes rather beyond. the original Question. On the question of entrance requirements into universities, my hon. Friend will know that very different opinions are held as to whether we should stick to an A-level system, whether we should copy the Oxford andi Cambridge university entrance examination, or whether we should try to find some new form of aptitude test. I ant sure that for the moment the right thing is to leave this to the dialogue between the universities and the schools, although if at any time an initiative is called for. I would be only too ready to help.

Technical Colleges (Administration)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now make a statement on the administration of technical colleges.

Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon, Friend to the White Paper, "A Plan for Polytechnics and Other Colleges", which was published last Tuesday. If my hon. Friend has government of colleges particularly in mind, I would refer him to paragraph 25 of the White Paper.

Mr. Hamling: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's White Paper, may I


ask him to take steps to see that his real views on technical education are made known, as against the legends which are so often printed?

Mr. Crosland: I have profound sympathy with that reference to the debate on the binary system—the so-called debate which, to put it mildly, has often not been on a very high level of either intellect or accuracy.

University Building Programme

Sir E. Boyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now announce an increase in the university building programme for 1968-69.

Mr. Crosland: I have nothing to add to my statement on 22nd December last.

Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the building programme of £25 million is grotesquely inadequate for 44 university institutions? Is he aware that we on this side of the House are deeply concerned?

Mr. Crosland: All of us are deeply concerned to do as well by the universities as we can. The universities would like more than the £25 million, but in our view this is a reasonable provision considering the economic situation, and we certainly think that it will be a sufficient provision to enable the universities to achieve the Robbins target.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, we shall return to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

DR. ERHARD (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The German Chancellor and I had a series of very useful talks covering all the main issues confronting us. I will, with permission, circulate the Communiqué issued after the talks in the

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that his noble Friend the Minister

of State responsible for disarmament has recently been taking the line in public statements that in the interests of getting an agreement to ban the spread of nuclear weapons it would be better if the problem of nuclear sharing in the Western Alliance was solved by means of consultative arrangements rather than a collective nuclear force? Did the Prime Minister put this point of view to Dr. Erhard and, if so, what was the result?

The Prime Minister: I have already dealt with the speech of my noble Friend. So far as my discussions with the German Chancellor were concerned, we did not raise these issues of nuclear sharing, although they were discussed between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the German Foreign Secretary.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Now that the Prime Minister has talked to the German Chancellor and apparently come away without any agreement at all on support costs, will he have the generosity to with draw some of the very unfair remarks which he made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in the last Parliament? May I ask him whether we may anticipate that when there is a support cost agreement with the Germans it will be more favourable than he lately was able to make with the United States?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman of all people should talk about support costs. The criticisms I made of the agreement negotiated under his Government, which provided for no firm figures at all, were met by the fact that last year my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary negotiated a much more satisfactory agreement, providing for far better figures than those which the right hon. Gentleman had got. Now we want to improve still further on them, although in view of his attitude it is a little difficult to do so. Further talks are now going to be held leading to agreement, we trust, by 18th September.

Mr. Michael Foot: While dealing with support costs has the Prime Minister had the opportunity of reading the memoirs of Lord Moran, where it is stated that when the original agreement to keep four divisions in Germany, which are responsible for those costs we have to bear,


was made by the Foreign Secretary in the then Government, it was repudiated by the Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, the following day, who said, according to the memoirs, that the commitment did not mean anything? Would the Prime Minister comment on the situation?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I am a bit behind in my reading and I have not fully caught up on the Suez reading which my hon. Friend has recently recommended me to undertake. I do riot think that that particular issue arises on this Question and certainly not out of the talks with Chancellor Erhard. All I can say is that there was no effective agreement on support costs when we came into office. Now there is and we want to extend it.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the present circumstances, one of the most important things is that we should find the best possible accommodation between the integrated N.A.T.O. forces and the French forces after 1st July? This was no doubt discussed with the German Chancellor. Will the British Government now be much more flexible in trying to find this accommodation than they have been so far?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to stress that this was one of the most important questions we discussed. By far the greater part of our discussion was on this question. There is complete agreement between the two Governments on the questions raised by the French decisions, although, of course, the problem of the French forces in Germany is mainly for the German Government themselves. They have to decide what conditions they can agree on. We had discussions with them. We were not trying to reach agreement on it. We understand their position. On the attitude taken within N.A.T.O., there is complete agreement between the German Government, ourselves, and, indeed, the United States Government.
Following is the Joint Communiqué issued on 25th May, 1966, after the visit to London of the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (Professor Erhard) and the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr. Gerhard Schroeder):
At the invitation of the Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Professor Erhard, visited London from 23rd-25th May, The visit was in return for that paid by the Prime Minister to Bonn in March, 1965. Professor Erhard was accompanied by the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Gerhard Schroeder.
Her Majesty The Queen received the Federal Chancellor in audience on the 24th May.
Chancellor Erhard had comprehensive discussions with the Prime Minister on a wide range of questions of common concern to the two Governments. The German Foreign Minister, Dr. Schroeder, and the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Stewart, took part in the talks. The First Secretary of State, Mr. Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Callaghan, the Defence Secretary, Mr. Healey, the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Jay and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Thomson, were also present for part of the talks. In addition, the German Chancellor had separate discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there were separate talks between Dr. Schroeder and Mr. Stewart.
The visit took place in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and friendly co-operation which reflected the very satisfactory state of Anglo-German relations. Both sides recalled with satisfaction the impetus which had been given to the growth of understanding and the establishment of a close and friendly relationship between the two countries by the visit to Germany in 1965 of Her Majesty The Queen.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister gave particular attention to the present situation in the Western Alliance. They found themselves in full agreement on the need to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the integrated N.A.T.O. defence system and on the principles on which this should be done. They share the conviction that, at the N.A.T.O. Ministerial meeting at Brussels in June, decisions should he taken which will both enable this reorganisation to go forward and agreements to be reached with France on her continuing place in the alliance. They were also agreed on the importance of continuing the studies of the nuclear organisation of the alliance.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister agreed that the greater cohesion and strength of the Alliance which they hope will be achieved should at the same time serve to improve the prospects of progress towards a peaceful settlement of the outstanding problems of East-West relations. It was agreed that both governments should continue their efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. The Prime Minister welcomed the recent initiative of the Federal Government embodied in their Note of the 25th of March, 1966 in the field of disarmament and European security and expressed the hope that this would contribute to achieving an atmosphere of greater mutual confidence in Europe in which a start could be made towards a just and lasting political settlement in the interests. of all concerned.
In this connection the Chancellor and the Prime Minister reaffirmed their view that an essential element in any lasting settlement must be the reunification of Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister recognised the importance of the role of the U.S. Government as well as that of their other Allies in arriving at such a settlement. They noted their Government's continued readiness to agree to any measure likely to reduce tension in Europe without changing the balance of military forces to the disadvantage of the West.
The Prime Minister reaffirmed the determination of H.M.G. to continue to play their full part in defending the freedom of the people of Berlin.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor also discussed recent developments within the European Economic Community, and relations between the Community and the United Kingdom. They reaffirmed their belief in a wider European unity in which all the Countries of Europe who so wished might play their full part. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the willingness of Britain to join the European Economic Community, together with the other members of E.F.T.A. who wished to do so, provided that ways could be found to safeguard essential British and Commonwealth interests. The Chancellor emphasised anew that the German Government had always supported British accession to the European Economic Community and that it would continue to do so. The Heads of Government expressed the hope that further progress along this road could soon be made in co-operation with all partner countries concerned.
The present state of the Kennedy Round negotiations were also reviewed and both sides reaffirmed their intention of doing their utmost to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. The questions of Vietnam and Rhodesia were also discussed. The Prime Minister informed the Chancellor of the latest developments in the Rhodesian situation and explained the British Government's thinking. He thanked the Chancellor for the support and co-operation of the Federal Government on this issue and stressed the continuing importance of maintaining effective sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor reviewed the problem of financing the foreign exchange costs of British troops in Germany. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the statement in the British Defence Review of February, 1966 that the British Government think it right to maintain their ground forces in Germany at about their existing level until satisfactory arms control arrangements have been agreed in Europe, provided, however, that some means is found for meeting the foreign exchange cost of these forces. The Federal Chancellor in reply explained the German position and referred to the existing contractual agreement.
It was agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the German Minister of Finance should meet shortly in order to arrange for a mixed Commission to examine all the various methods by which the problem

might be satisfactorily resolved. This Commission should report to the two Governments by 15th September, 1966.
The Federal Chancellor and the Prime Minister had a short exchange of views on the question of international liquidity. Chancellor Erhard invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Bonn for further discussions on this subject.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister also reviewed the progress of Anglo-German consultations. They agreed that these were developing well and affirmed their determination to maintain and develop the closest cooperation between the two Governments.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister agreed to hold a further exchange of views in Bonn in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. HEADQUARTERS

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Headquarters will not be located in London.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 26th April to a Question by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths).

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if and when we manage to get some of these international organisations' headquarters in this country, they will not be sited in London since this would conflict with the Government's policy of diversification and decentralisation to the provinces?

The Prime Minister: We are pushing ahead with decentralisation of British Government offices to different parts of Britain. I think that my hon. Friend is at least one jump ahead in the race, because this decision will have to be taken by the allies collectively. We have not begun to discuss even in what country any of these installations might be established, following the French decision that they shall not be in France.

Mr. Heath: As President de Gaulle is apparently willing for the Council itself to remain in Paris, what is the Government's attitude towards this?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which we must discuss with our colleagues in N.A.T.O. There are arguments both ways, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, about whether the Council should be in


the same place as the military headquarters. There is the question of the Military Committee. We had better have further discussions and then I will make a statement to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACTS

Mr. Fitt: asked the Prime Minister if he will advise the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the working of the Government of Ireland Acts in so far as they concern matters within Ibe responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Rose: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now set up a committee of inquiry into the working of the Government of Ireland Acts in so far as they concern the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If as I understand the Questions refer to matters within the reserved powers in which Her Majesty's Government have a direct responsibility, I am not aware of any issue in which an inquiry is needed.

Mr. Fitt: Would my right hon. Friend agree that under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the ultimate responsibility for everything which happens and good government in Nor-them Ireland is with the United Kingdom Government? Would he further agree that in the 46 years which have elapsed since this Act was put on the Statute Book it has been made increasingly obvious that democracy does not exist in Northern Ireland and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his right to put a point of view, but he must put it concisely like everybody else.

The Prime Minister: Democracy in Northern Ireland has at any rate brought my hon. Friend to us, even if we have not had the pleasure of his company for the whole 46 years. This Question raises some very difficult issues because of the division of functions between the United Kingdom Parliament and Government and the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government. We are all aware that hon. Members in more than one part of the

House are very disturbed about certain things which go on. I am not taking sides in this because there are allegations and counter-allegations by one side or another within Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that this is a matter to be dealt with in the manner suggested in the supplementary question. I think that the right thing would be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself to have informal talks with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to see whether some of the difficulties which all of us recognise exist might be overcome in an informal way.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern on this side of the House about allegations of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government. It cannot be raised at Question Time.

Mr. Rose: On a point of Order. Under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act all matters pertaining to Northern Ireland are ultimately—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must accept Mr. Speaker's Ruling. If he turns to the appropriate page of Erskine May, he will find why he cannot raise these matters at Question Time.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to raise this point, Mr. Speaker, but if Ulster Members come here and interfere in our affairs cannot we do likewise?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a political point. All that I am concerned with is what is in order at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman will find that the matter is dealt with in Erskine May at page 354.

Mr. Rose: Further to that point of order. Since it is not in order to raise this matter because of the convention, is it in order for me to ask my right hon. Friend to hold an inquiry into this convention?

The Prime Minister: There are very many things which over the years require informal consultations. There is the convention which all Governments in this


House have fully honoured about not dealing with matters which are within the responsibility of the Stormont Parliament. It sometimes means that problems in London, for example, are voted on by Ulster Members here whereas we cannot vote on corresponding issues there. Indeed, there could be a change of British Government following on a vote on an issue in respect of which we have no rights in Stormont.
The issues raised in this Question relate much more to certain allegations which have been very much rehearsed in recent weeks and months. Some of them must be a matter for investigation by the police and authorities in Northern Ireland; we have no responsibility for them.
On the wider issues, I think that the best thing is to have these informal talks with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who, we all recognise, has been very helpful on a number of questions very recently.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Notwithstanding anything which the Prime Minister has said, in view of the untiring efforts of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to improve community relations which the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, and statements by officials of the Labour Party on the subject, will he not deprecate irresponsible and inaccurate statements made from time to time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether they are made or not, they cannot be made at Question time.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: —which tend to resurrect old sectarian bitterness?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is equally out of order.

RHODESIA

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to agree with Mr. Smith on the name of an independent conciliator willing to preside over constitutional talks on Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. King: Would the Prime Minister concede that these talks are vital and urgent? Would he further concede, whether they succeed or fail, that heavy

criticism will fall on the Prime Minister and on Great Britain? Would it not ease his task if an initiative were to come from a third party?

The Prime Minister: If I thought that the only way, or the best way, to get a settlement of this problem on terms satisfactory not only to all the people of Rhodesia but to this House, in accordance with the principles laid down, were by means of an independent conciliator, I should not hesitate to follow that course. I believe that the course which we are pursuing is more likely to get the right answer.

Dr. Gray: Would my right hon. Friend reiterate that the constitutional talks can take place only once the principle of gradual advance to majority rule has been accepted by the Southern Rhodesians?

The Prime Minister: I have said a number of times that there cannot be a settlement except on a basis which gives full effect to the six principles, the first five of which were the policy of the previous Government in this country and ourselves, and that any settlement must follow those principles, the first of which relates to effective progress towards majority rule.

MR. GERALD KAUFMAN

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Prime Minister what official facilities are given to Mr. Gerald Kaufman at Number 10 Downing Street.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is it not a matter of serious concern that after the Prime Minister's own pressure on the television services a member of his household should on his behalf attempt to censor a book?

The Prime Minister: Apart from the fact that the preamble to the question is completely wrong, the second part of the question is also wrong. There was no attempt to censor a book, nor is it anything to do with the Question, because there are no official facilities being used. So far as the hon. Gentleman's point is concerned, all that is desired is that if people are going to quote HANSARD they should quote it correctly.

Mr. Hamling: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what official facilities have been given in No. 10 Downing Street in recent years to editors of the Spectator?

The Prime Minister: None, Sir, to any who currently hold the position of editor of the Spectator, though I do find that there were official facilities given to a number of speech writers, one of whom later, I think, became editor of the Spectator. But we do not have that kind of patronage on this side of the House.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Mr. Ian Gilmour rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one supplementary per person.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Whitsun Recess and the great concern over the seamen's strike, could my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answer Question No. 21?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman will learn that if a Minister wishes to answer a Question on the Order Paper which is not reached, he will let Mr. Speaker know.

PARKHURST PRISONERS (ESCAPE)

Mr. Deedes: Mr. Deedes (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the escape of nine long-term Parkhurst prisoners in Hampshire on Wednesday.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): A party of 13 prisoners were returning by hired coach from Winchester Assizes after having been produced as witnesses for the defence at assizes in a case against a prisoner for the alleged stabbing of another prisoner. The coach was driven by a civilian driver and contained an escort consisting of one principal officer and six discipline officers in the coach itself, followed by a police escort car containing a driver and two constables. The prison officer escort was armed with staves and the prisoners were handcuffed in the following way.
Two men who were on the escape list were each handcuffed to an officer; the remainder of the prisoners were handcuffed in pairs to each other, except for one odd one, who was handcuffed to an officer. This left two officers and the principal officer in charge free for general supervision.
The case at the assizes concluded about 3 p.m. and the coach was near the village of Bishop's Waltham at about 4 p.m. when one of the prisoners shouted "Right", and immediately a melee broke out in the coach. Some prisoners threw themselves across officers and one struck the driver a blow across the back of the neck, and endeavoured to seize the wheel. The driver braked suddenly and with the jerk officers and prisoners were thrown off balance. Before the coach actually came to a standstill nine prisoners escaped The police escort car stopped and the constables joined in the pursuit of the escaping prisoners.
Four of those escaping were recaptured yesterday evening but I greatly regret to say that five are still at large.
The Governor has made a preliminary investigation of the facts, and I have instructed the Director of Prison Administration, together with the Security Adviser, to hold an immediate inquiry starting this afternoon at Parkhurst and report to me.

Mr. Deedes: While accepting the need. for a full inquiry into this alarming incident, will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First of all, is it usual to move prisoners of this character in a coach, which was presumably unlocked, and, if not, why was it done on this occasion? Secondly, in view of reports about the unlocking of handcuffs, to what extent were they subject to close security arrangements?

Mr. Jenkins: On the first of the right hon. Gentleman's questions, yes, it has been the practice for some time to move prisoners in coaches. It is unusual for so many to have to give evidence in a case, but, if circumstances demand it, it is not unusual for coaches to be used. I will look carefully into the practice and see whether it calls for any change. None of the prisoners who escaped was among those kept in the maximum security wing at Parkhurst.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the handcuffs came to be unlocked, if they were? We accept the need for a close inquiry into the matter, but will he not accept that the public are considerably concerned about it? Can he undertake to give the House any further information as soon as the inquiry is complete?

Mr. Jenkins: I accept that the public is deeply concerned about this incident, as I am myself and as I am sure the whole House is. That is why I have asked for an immediate inquiry. Until I get the result of that, I cannot say exactly what happened about the unlocking of handcuffs.

Mr. Manuel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has any knowledge as to whether handcuffs were unlocked before the escape? Were the prisoners who escaped attached to prison officers?

Mr. Jenkins: The prisoners who were attached to officers did not escape. Those who escaped were the prisoners who were attached to each other. I cannot say exactly what happened about the handcuffs until we have the results of the inquiry.

Mr. Woodnutt: Looking at the rather broader issues and bearing in mind that people living in the vicinity of Parkhurst are extremely worried about this occurrence, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider if it is possible, when a lot of prisoners are involved in a case of this nature, to hold the court in Parkhurst itself? Alternatively, could they not give evidence by some form of affidavit? It is a pity that the initiative shown in relation to the security block has not been carried on when prisoners are in transit.

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of the concern that constituents of the hon. Gentleman and others will feel. However, to move the place of assize would raise difficulty, and it would also raise difficulty if someone who wished to call serving prisoners to give evidence for the defence was not able to call that evidence.

Mr. Ogden: Is it correct that the prisoners were in civilian clothes at the

time of the escape? If it is desirable for them to be wearing civilian clothes in the court, surely they should change back into prison clothes before being transported back to the prison.

Mr. Jenkins: I will consider that point.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, will he not consider that criminals who have been convicted of felonies of violence should always be moved in an armoured police van and not a civilian bus? Secondly, are we to take it that what is apparently a breach of security, involving heavy costs, will be a charge which will fall on the unfortunate ratepayers in the area?

Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly consider whether the practice of moving prisoners, particularly those of this character, by a civilian coach is a desirable one, but it is not a new practice.

Mr. Thorpe: What about the cost?

Mr. Jenkins: I shall look into that.

Mr. Carlisle: Could the Home Secretary explain that part of his Answer where he said that two prisoners were on the escape list and handcuffed to prison officers, whereas, according to reports in today's papers, three of the nine who escaped had records of previous escapes? Secondly, could he say whether he feels that to take one police car and six prison officers is really an adequate force to carry nine dangerous criminals, three of whom have records of previous escapes?

Mr. Jenkins: There was a total of seven prison officers, including the principal officer, as well as those in the police car. But I will certainly consider all these matters very carefully and see whether there are some general lessons to be learned from this unfortunate experience by means of which we can avoid a similar occurrence in the future.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath. Business Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the week after the Whitsun Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): The business for the first week after the Whitsun Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH JUNE—Progress on the Committee stage of the Ministry of Social Security Bill.
TUESDAY, 14TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.
Remaining stages of the Overseas Aid Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH JUNE, and THURSDAY, 16TH JUNE—Progress on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 17TH JuNE—Completion of the remaining stages of the Ministry of Social Security Bill.

Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm what we understood the Chancellor to say last night, namely, that the Ministry of Labour Bill on the Selective Employment Tax will be published before we start the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on Wednesday, 13th June?

Mr. Bowden: I can confirm that. In fact, the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members, if they wish, before we begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. What has to be borne in mind additionally is that the Selective Employment Tax is Clause 42 of the Finance Bill, so that gives a little more time. It is hardly likely that we shall read the first 41 Clauses the first day.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week he looked kindly on a request for a debate on the work of the Council of Europe? If such a debate is possible, will he try to arrange that it is held separately from a general foreign affairs debate, otherwise this limited debate will be buried under the immediate problems such as Vietnam, Malaysia and the Middle East?

Mr. Bowden: I think that there is real value in discussing the work of the Coun-

cil of Europe. It is usual to have a two-day debate on foreign affairs in the weeks before the Summer Recess, one day being offered by the Opposition and one by the Government. It may be that we can divide that up in some way. I shall look at it.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent need for a statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland about teacher's salaries, following the publication this week of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board on teachers' salaries?

Mr. Bowden: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have noted that question.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be an early opportunity to debate the Geddes Report on Shipbuilding?

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise an early opportunity, but I shall see what I can do to arrange a debate before the end of July.

Mr. Brewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern in Scotland about teachers' salaries? Will he try to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement before the Recess?

Mr. Bowden: I have said that I will draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Dr. David Owen: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the hospital building programme which has just been announced? It is a subject of great concern to the nation as a whole. My right hon. Friend said that he would consider it soon after Whitsun.

Mr. Bowden: I appreciate that there is great concern about this, but my right hon. Friend's statement was made only a day or two ago, and I think that we should have time to consider it first.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Reverting to the question of teachers' salaries in Scotland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is grave concern that unless the Secretary of State makes a statement to the House before the Recess he is merely sheltering behind the Prices and Incomes Board in trying


to get a decision on this important matter?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Bowden: I have already answered the question twice.

Mrs. Renée Short: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that an hon. Member who was successful in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills has decided to introduce a Bill for the reform of the abortion law, which is long overdue and much needed? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give time for this, as was promised by a Home Office Minister to the House recently?
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he intends to connive at the slaughter once more of a private Member's Ten Minute Rule Bill by putting it on at a late hour tonight—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is on the Order Paper for today. We must not misuse business questions.

Mr. Bowden: I think that we must see how we get on with private Members' time.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the very grim and solemn warning given last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the likelihood of mass unemployment resulting from the continued demand for unreasonable increases in wages, and as we shall not be able to debate this matter on the Finance Bill, will the Leader of the House try to find the time to debate this very serious warning?

Mr. Bowden: We have recently had an economic debate, and I am sure that it is not beyond hon. Members to find an opportunity to draw attention to this during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to produce a White Paper on South Arbia, and whether any representation has been made by the Opposition for a debate on this matter?
Secondly, will he consider taking the Motion which has been put down for tonight on Ten Minute Rule Bills after the Whitsun Recess so that Members can take part in a full debate on it?

ask that because there is a large volume of back-bench opinion against the practice of taking Ten Minute Rule Bills after all other business.

Mr. Bowden: I have had no request other than from my hon. Friend for a debate on Southern Arabia. We might consider this in due course.
The Motion to which my hon. Friend referred is under Standing Order No. 13. I think that we had better wait and see how we get on. I would not take it if it were too late.

Mr. Hastings: In view of the regrettable events in Buganda, and other outbreaks of violence in Commonwealth countries during the last year, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving time for a full debate after the Whitsun Recess on the present state of the Commonwealth and its relevance to British interests?

Mr. Bowden: There are seven Supply days. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will try to persuade his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to use one of them for that purpose.

Mr. Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope for a debate soon after the Recess on the changed fuel and power situation brought about by the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea?

Mr. Bowden: A very interesting subject, no doubt, but, here again, I think that we must use the opportunities available to the House of Supply and Adjournment debates.

Mr. Kershaw: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed recently that the rules of procedure as they have grown up have made it virtually impossible for a backbench Member to obtain an Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9? Has the Leader of the House any plans to refer this matter to a Select Committee, or to consider it during the next part of our proceedings?

Mr. Bowden: The terms of reference of the Select Committee on Procedure are wide enough for the Committee to look at this. I agree that the matter needs looking at.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time to deal with the


grave public danger which is created by ships being allowed to leave British ports, manned only by officers and without crews, to the prejudice of the seamen in this strike?

Mr. Bowden: I had not noticed that that was happening, but no doubt my hon. and learned Friend will have an opportunity of raising it during today's debate.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at the conclusion of the defence talks with the South Arabian Federation a full statement will be made to the House by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Bowden: I shall speak to my right hon. Friend about this. I think that this would be desirable.

Mr. Younger: Is the Leader of the House aware that his previous answer about Scottish teachers' pay is entirely unsatisfactory? Will he arrange at least to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to come to the House tomorrow and make a full statement so that we may know the position before the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Bowden: I have twice said that I shall draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and I shall certainly do so.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference is to take place?

Mr. Bowden: No, not without notice.

SEAMEN'S STRIKE (COURT OF INQUIRY)

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I have appointed a Court of Inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, with the following terms of reference:
To inquire into—
First, the immediate causes and circumstances of the present dispute between the shipowners and members of the National Union of Seamen;
Secondly, terms and conditions of service of seamen, taking into account the national interest, technological

change and the need for an efficient and competitive shipping industry;
Thirdly, relations between ship. owners, officers and seamen;
Fourthly, the law, including the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relevant to points 2 and 3 that I have made.
Lord Pearson has agreed to serve as Chairman of the Inquiry. Other members are Mr. Hugh Clegg of Nuffielcl College, Oxford; Mr. Stephen Brown, President Elect of the Confederation of British Industry; Mr. J. O'Hagan, General Secretary of the National Union of Blastfurnacemen and Chairman of the General Council of the T.U.C.
The court will begin its work as soon as possible, and both the employers and the union have promised full cooperation. I have discussed with Lord Pearson the possibility of the court making an interim report dealing with the immediate issues in the dispute, and he will be considering this possibility with his colleagues as a matter of urgency.
As the House knows, the Government's intention that there should be a full and searching inquiry into all the issues affecting this dispute has repeatedy been made clear to both sides. The appointment of this Court of Inquiry is a further demonstration of the Government's determination to help the two sides to reach a prompt and equitable solution of their differences and so put an end to the serious damage which the strike is causing.

Sir K. Joseph: When, approximately, at the earliest does the Minister hope that a report, interim or otherwise, can be expected?

Mr. Gunter: It is very difficult to speculate about a Court of Inquiry, because so much is in its hands, but we are thinking in terms of a dozen or 14 days for a prompt report on the issue that is of immediate concern. The remainder of the inquiry will take much longer, because it is a legal matter.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend will understand that everybody in the House will welcome an inquiry of a comprehensive character, in particular since it will include an examination of the Merchant Shipping Act and possible amendments. But does he realise that


the setting up of the inquiry may have the effect of preventing a possible compromise arrangement between the Seamen's Union and the Shipping Federation? Can he use his influence with Lord Pearson, the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry—I do not know how it may be done—to ensure that something is done in connection with the immediate dispute, perhaps during the course of the next few days?

Mr. Gunter: I take my right hon. Friend's point. Lord Pearson will be meeting both sides concerned in the dispute in the early part of next week, when, I think, he will be discussing with them, before the formal opening of the inquiry, the point raised by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hooson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to be represented at this inquiry and whether the representatives of the Government there will put forward their own proposals for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894? Is there any reason why there should not be the introduction of a statutory working week by the amendment of this Act? Have the Government any such proposals to put to the inquiry?

Mr. Gunter: I have no doubt that the Board of Trade, in particular, will have its point of view on these issues and will make its submissions. If I understood the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, about the Government's interests being represented, he will note that under the terms of reference the national interest will be taken into account.

Mr. Helfer: Can my right hon. Friend say whether either side—seamen or employers—was prepared to accept anything which came out of this inquiry, especially in relation to the immediate settlement of the present dispute? By that I mean, was some offer being made by the employers?

Mr. Gunter: The difficulty about what my hon. Friend asks is that it really

amounts to a question whether both sides have pledged themselves to accept what comes out of the inquiry. I could not demand of either side a promise that it would accept whatever came out from the inquiry. But I met both the employers and the trade union at midday today and I am sure that, with the establishment of a court of this character and of such a high level, the recommendations flowing from it will inevitably have the gravest consideration by both sides.

Captain Elliot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that millions of people who are neither seamen or shipowners are affected by the strike and its possible settlement? Will the body that he has appointed take their interest into account?

Mr. Gunter: I should imagine that a body of this character, with the type of persons sitting on it, would certainly have the interests of the whole community at heart.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the welcome statement which my right hon. Friend has just made, will it be necessary for the Government to proceed with the acquisition of emergency powers?

Mr. Gunter: Yes, but that is not a question for me.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the inquiry be held in public?

Mr. Gunter: That is a matter for the inquiry itself to decide.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Union of Seamen is quite willing to co-operate and to give evidence to this inquiry? On that basis, can he assure the House that the inquiry will be quite free to reach its own conclusions on wages and conditions, and that when these conclusions are reached they will not be subject to any findings by the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Gunter: Mr. Gunter indicated assent.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS

Order read for consideration of Her Majesty's Message [23rd May].

Message from Her Majesty read.

The Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be, calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the present stoppage of work among merchant seamen having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended:

Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 23rd day of May 1966, and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as, so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order. Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether this debate is taking place upon a Motion? If it is, should not hon. Members be in possession of further documents, apart from the Order Paper? The Order Paper refers to a consideration of Her Majesty's Message, but does not refer to a Motion.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member waits o see what happens he I think will be further advised.

3.56 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move,
That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty has deemed it proper oy Proclamation, dated the 23rd day of May 1966 and made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on Monday, the Government have a clear duty to maintain the essential supplies and services of the community whenever these are or may be interrupted. I do not propose now to review the course of

events leading up to the strike by the National Union of Seamen, nor the efforts which have been made and which will still be made to settle the dispute. What the House will be concerned with today are the measures which the Government. are taking to deal with the grave situation which now confronts us.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would propose to deal not only with this Motion, but also the following one,
[That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act. 1920 by Order dated 23rd May 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.]
and describe briefly what has been done and what we propose to do under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the two Motions are debated together, although the Questions can, of course, be put separately.
Hon. Members may wish to raise points of technical and legal detail about these Measures during the course of the debate, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will wind up, will be glad to deal with these.
As the House knows, the Proclamation of emergency was made on Monday, 23rd May, and on the same day the Emergency Regulations, 1966, were made and laid before Parliament. They came into operation on 24th May. Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act provides
If at any time it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred, or are about to occur, events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the corn munity, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation declare that a state of emergency exists.
I hope that the House will agree—as, indeed, the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition accepted on Monday—that in present circumstances the Government had no real option but to advise Her Majesty that the time had come for the Proclamation to be made. If Parlia. ment approves these Regulations today, they will continue in operation for one month only since Section 1 of the 1920 Act provides that the Proclamation of an emergency is valid only for that time.
The Regulations with which we are now concerned have of necessity been drafted to cover a wide variety of situations. We must cover action which, though not yet necessary, may become so if the strike continues. I wish to make it absolutely clear to the House that the Government have no intention of making use of these powers unless and until the needs of the situation compel us to do so. There will be no question of the premature or unnecessary use of the Regulations. At the moment, their purpose is precautionary. So far, it has been possible to avoid serious congestion in our ports and I know that port authorities and those who work with them are doing everything possible to keep the ports open. The provision of essential supplies to all islands around our coasts is at present being maintained.
I do not propose to weary the House by going through each Regulation in detail, but it will be observed that they fall into four more or less distinct categories. The first two relate to the control of ports and dock labour. Under Regulation 1, the Minister of Transport can give directions to port authorities, or to other persons, to ensure the best use of the ports and to avoid congestion. Regulation 2 enables the Minister of Labour to override the Dock Labour Scheme, under which only registered dock employers may employ dock workers and only registered dock workers may do dock work.
The next eight Regulations relate to the relaxation of certain existing restrictions on road transport. For example, the Minister of Transport will be empowered to allow goods and passenger vehicles to be used without certain of the usual licences.
Regulations 12 to 21 enable the appropriate Ministers to give directions as to the supply of fuel, food and animal feeding stuffs, as to the restriction of postal services and home trade shipping. In this category I draw special attention to Regulation 18, which empowers my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to provide by Order for regulating the maximum prices which may be charged for such foods as may be specified.
The Government hope that it will not be necessary to use this power, but they

are determined that the community shall not be exploited by those who, for reasons of personal gain, might wish to take advantage of the present situation. At the moment, the price situation is somewhat better than it looked a week or so ago and this may well owe a good deal to the fact that the Government have made it clear that we are prepared, if necessary, to take resolute action.
If we can, we would prefer to leave it to the good sense of traders reinforced by the good sense of the shopping public. But we now have the powers and if there is any widespread sign of exploitation, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will not hesitate to use them. I remind the House that without the Proclamation and these Regulations we could not have had the powers.
Other Regulations provide for the maintenance of law and order and for the enforcement of the Regulations. While we all hope that only the most limited use of these powers will be necessary and that full co-operation will be given by all those to whom we look for assistance, there are necessarily provisions for the enforcement of the Regulations.
However, I wish to make it absolutely clear that, as provided for in Section 2 of the Act of 1920 and in Regulation 31 of those before us today, it is not an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person to take part in it. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made abundantly clear, these Regulations are not directed against the National Union of Seamen, nor are they designed in themselves to affect the continuation or outcome of the strike. Their sole purpose—and this is a responsibility which no Government should avoid—is to maintain the essentials of life for the community at large.
It will, I am sure, be the earnest hope of all of us that the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to bring this damaging strike to an end will meet with early success and that the need for the powers which we are asking the House to grant will be short-lived.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question to which I referred earlier? A grave public danger is caused by ships being allowed to leave British ports


manned not by crew, but only by officers. There was an incident concerning which I wrote to the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot make a speech at this moment.

Mr. Hughes: I am not making a speech; I am explaining my question. I should not like it to be thought that I was speaking without the book. I have sent to the Board of Trade the incident of a vessel allowed to leave a Scottish port when manned only by four officers and without any crew. I am asking the Home Secretary how the Regulations will deal with that. Is not that a grave public danger to the ship, to the freight and to any passengers who may be abroad and generally to the public? What Regulations will deal with that?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that the events to which my hon. and learned Friend refers as having taken place are affected by the Regulations, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal with this matter in detail in his reply.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), may I make quite clear to the House what is happening? We are taking this Motion of thanks to Her Majesty. It is without notice. as is normal in the case of votes of thanks to Her Majesty for the Gracious Speech and on other occasions.
It has been suggested by the Home Secretary—I understand with the concurrence of both sides of the House—that while debating the Motion we should also discuss the Regulations themselves, so that the debate upon which we are to enter can be quite wide on the Regulations, the causes which have led up to the Regulations, and the strike itself.
I would point out to the House only the technical point that I shall put the Question on the vote of thanks at 10 o'clock, and must by Standing Orders, but that that will not prevent the debate on the Regulations from continuing, because the Regulations are exempt business. I hope that that is quite clear.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the statement which you have just made. But is it the case that a Motion of thanks to Her Majesty for a Message is always presented to the House in the form in which this is presented today, thereby prohibiting the House from moving Amendments? Is it not the case that in certain circumstances such a Motion is presented so as to enable the House to move Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the Clerk—this point has not been put to me before—that it would be possible for me to accept a manuscript Amendment. This would make the debate rather very difficult and complicated. The issue is now quite clearly before the House—the broad events which led up to the present crisis and the question whether we adopt the Regulations which are proposed. In this general debate up to 10 o'clock we shall discuss everything connected both with the Regulations and with the events leading up to them. After 10 o'clock, the debate, if it should continue, will be narrowed to the Regulations.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: (Peterborough). On a point of order. I understand the procedure for dealing with the Message to Her Majesty, but, unless I misheard him, I felt that the Home Secretary proposed a new Motion at the opening of his speech. Should not that have been in manuscript form?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of any disparity between what the Home Secretary said and what I read to the House.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Before I embark on any discussion of the Motion which the Home Secretary has moved, I am sure that the whole House would echo his closing words of hope that the Court of Inquiry which was announced by the Minister of Labour immediately prior to these proceedings will have a fruitful result. I think that the pendency of the proceedings of that court of inquiry make it even less than ever appropriate for me, or perhaps other hon. Members, to embark at any length upon the merits of the dispute out of which this emergency arises.
If I may revert in a substantive form to the points which have been discussed on a point of order, I confirm that it is agreeable to my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to discuss, as we think it would be for the benefit of the House in this instance, both the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman moved and the other Motion for the continuance of the Regulations which stands in his name on the Order Paper. I must point out, however, I think correctly, that this is a matter for the convenience of the House and is not to be supposed to have happened or to happen on every occasion.
I have been at some pains in the last 48 hours to look up the precedents in this matter, and it appears that in the past the House has not pursued a uniform course of practice at all. In 1926, for instance, the Prime Minister of the day declared this Motion which is being moved to be undebatable, I think wrongly, and it was not in fact debated, but it was divided upon without a debate.
On the other hand, the second Motion for the continuance of the Regulations was debated at very great length over two or three days and is amendable by the express terms of the Statute, although we would not seek to amend it in the present case, nor do I suggest for one moment that it would be appropriate or desirable for anyone to do so.
In 1949 the present course was adopted—that is to say, the two Motions were discussed together but divided upon separately. In 1955 there was no Motion corresponding to this because the Proclamation which declared the emergency took place before the opening of Parliament. The result is that there is no uniform practice in this matter, and I think it proper that the House should pursue whatever happens to be convenient in the light of the circumstances of the particular emergency and the form in which the debate and the Regulations were placed.
I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that this is not a happy moment in the history of Parliament or in the history of industrial relations. Nor is it a happy thing that we have been asked to do. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues thought long and anxiously before taking the step

which they advised Her Majesty to take. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we for our part, viewing our responsibility as an Opposition, thought anxiously and long, too, before acknowledging, as my right hon. Friend did on Monday, that we regarded it as our duty to give the Government general support in the course which they have decided upon. In giving it we shall make it plain that we do so chivalrously and generously, we hope, and not in any niggling or niggardly or carping spirit. We think it is the duty of loyal subjects to support the Government in this matter of whatever political persuasion, and we intend as far as we can to pursue that course and to give an example of it for ourselves.
Yet it is an unhappy thing that we are being asked to do, and the moment is a grave one and not less grave, if I may say so, because there are no symptoms of crisis yet obvious abroad. There are no shortages in the shops. After a moment of tremulousness, prices have apparently settled down, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged. There are no angry demonstrations in the streets and there are no obvious signs to anyone visiting this capital city that a state of emergency is in the air.
None the less, an emergency may be not less grave if it consists in the slow and gradual strangulation of the sources of supply than if it consists in some violent and catastrophic cutting off of the sources of supply, and it is for that reason that we think that the Government have been right in declaring that the conditions laid down in the Act of 1920, as amended by the Act of 1964, which is the statutory basis on which we have been working, have been fulfilled and that events have occurred and are about to occur—and here I am following as nearly as my memory permits the phraseology of the Statute—of such a nature that the community, or a substantial portion of the community at least, may be deprived of the essentials of life including food, fuel, light, water and the means of transport.
It is, I think, important to stress that this is something which is liable to happen to any Government—and this is the only point of a quasi-party nature which I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He, like me, will have studied the


precedents. I would only ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to search their consciences and to ask this question: if the positions had been reversed and the Conservative Party had been in Government and the Labour Party had been the Opposition—

Mr. R. T. Paget: That is hypothetical.

Mr. Hogg: That has happened in the past and in the ordinary course of the political future—as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) knows as well as I; he has been in Parliament as long as I have—will happen again. If that were the case, could the Conservative Government count on the same generous and chivalrous attitude from the Opposition as we are trying sincerely to show this afternoon?

Mr. E. Shinwell: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman record any instance when a previous Government submitted Regulations similar to these and the Opposition opposed them?

Mr. Hogg: Yes—1926 and 1955, and in 1949, when it was done by a small group of back-bench Members of the Labour Party. But this is not an occasion for party polemics of any kind.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying hard enough.

Mr. Hogg: In the ordinary course of events and over a period of years all industrial societies from time to time face emergencies of this kind, because modern industrial societies, through no fault of their own, have certain vulnerable points al. which industrial disputes of one sort and another can cut off the essentials of life. It is useless to pretend, it would be naive to pretend, over a period of years, that management is always wrong or that employees are always wrong or that the Governments are always wrong or that the fault lies always with all three or any two of them. The fact is that every kind of permutation and combination of responsibility can and will, over a period of years, give rise to an emergency of this kind.
What we believe is that in such circumstances, whoever may be to blame, whatever may be the true merits of the dispute—and, as I have said, I do not believe it would be helpful or appropriate if I

sought to say anything about the merits of this particular dispute—the community is entitled to protect its essentials of life. So far as we can see, that is the only point which we need to decide today. The only instrument by which the community can protect the essentials of life is the Government of the day, of whatever political persuasion. Notwithstanding the Government's indispensable role as a mediator in industrial disputes, and their duty to remain aloof from them except where their role of mediator may be involved, the Government of the day are bound to be the instrument whereby the community protects the essentials of life, whatever may be the merits of the case in the particular dispute.
Although we may hope that the dispute will be settled shortly, either independently or as a result of the measures proposed by the right hon Gentleman the Minister of Labour today, we must recognise, in deciding the rightness or wrongness of the Government's action today, that there is no immediate prospect or sign of either party yielding its position. If there were, it might be that the Government would have been justified in postponing their declaration, but certainly on Monday and—as I believe—today, there is no such sign, and it is for this reason, too, that we think that the Government have come to a correct conclusion.
Thirdly, there is the question of timing. I confess that I am not altogether happy about the prospect of parting in Recess, giving the Government very wide powers of legislation by decree without the smallest indication in detail—as the right hon. Gentleman will admit—of how they are intended to be used and in what circumstances, and without their having been used in any particular to date. I think that it could be represented that this was a sign that the action was premature, but we do not, on reflection, think that this is so. We do not desire and did not desire two days ago, that we should interfere with the Parliamentary arrangements for Recess. I do not suppose that a single Member of the House would object to changing the arrangements if this was in the public interest, or seemed to be in the public interest to any extent, but we think that the contrary is the case.
In these conditions, it is above all desirable not to undermine a spirit of


calm and confidence. We think that there is nothing more likely to undermine calm and confidence than an undue or precipitate interference with the arrangements for Parliamentary sittings, either by prolonging them after the time arranged for the Adjournment or by hasty or precipitate return after the Whitsun holiday. We therefore think that, in this case at least, the Government have done right to take the step which they took on Monday, and at the time when they took it.
This brings me to the actual Regulations. I think it right to point out to the House that these are the stiffest, widest and severest to be introduced, so far as I can ascertain, since the General Strike of 1926. They are certainly the most numerous. They are more numerous than the Labour Government's Regulations of 1949, which were designed to deal with the dock strike. They are more numerous than the Conservative Government's Regulations of 1955, which were designed to deal with the railway strike. What appears to have been done is to add the one to the other, and then to go back to my father's Regulations at the time of the General Strike, and finally to add something for good measure. There are even Regulations here which were not in the Regulations of 1926. The Government are taking very wide powers indeed, and I ask the Attorney-General whether they are completely necessary.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me? If, as he said earlier, the Opposition intend to support the Government in bringing these Regulations into effect, what earthly purpose is he serving by criticising the Regulations and by going over earlier ones? Is it not ridiculous to do so?

Mr. Hogg: It is extremely valuable, when Parliament is asked to sanction Government by decree, that we should examine the details of what it is asked to do. I say that without the smallest reservation or desire to make the responsibilities and anxieties of the Government greater than they are. Parliament is entitled to an explanation of what is proposed, and I should not be doing my duty as spokesman for the Opposition party without raising these points, for which, of course, there may be a per-

fectly adequate explanation. I would point out, for instance, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply to the debate that Regulation 23 gives power to take possession of land.
Unless I am mistaken, this was not thought necessary in the dock strike of 1949 or in the railway strike of 1955. What has happened in relation to this particular dispute which makes it necessary to go back to the General Strike of 1926 and obtain power to take possession of land? No doubt there is an adequate explanation, but we are entitled to ask what it is, because, whatever view the House or the parties might take about the responsibility for the General Strike, there is no question that that was a very much more serious situation than has to be dealt with at the present time.
We are entitled to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman exactly why all these 35 Regulations, far more numerous than any laid since the war in like circumstances, are really necessary. I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in relation to the power which has been taken to regulate the price of food, that there can be no objection in principle from any part of the House to taking such power. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that in moments of crisis the public must be protected and that profiteering must be prevented. But I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not offhand recall whether even in 1926 there was such a power, although I think that there was—but if in 1926 there was such a power, it was because it was armed and supported by a power to regulate distribution and supply.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman —because I have had some personal experience of this—that if he takes a power to fix prices without arming himself with some control over sources of supply and distribution, and then uses the power, he is apt to achieve a situation in which the power is found either to be superfluous or objectionable. With respect, he is utterly wrong in thinking in such circumstances that the danger lies in the suppliers taking advantage of the situation to try to put up the prices. On the contrary, when there is plenty of money about, the danger lies in the consumers


baying excessive supplies at an attractive price, fixed by regulation, to stock their own larders for the very innocent and reasonable purpose of feeding their families.
This is what I saw happen in the Lebanon during the war, and this led to actual famine, with people starving. This was largely due to the fact that the authorities had taken powers to regulate price without first arming themselves with power to control supplies and distribution.
My father's Regulations of 1926 did the latter and, therefore, it was possible to do the former. In the war we did the latter, and that was why it was possible to do the former. If, however, this power to regulate food prices is really to be more than a public relations exercise and is designed for actual use, which I venture to doubt, I would say that either too little has been taken or too much. The Home Secretary, I think, will not find, should the situation develop—which I believe it will not—that his powers are adequate. On the other hand, if it does not develop, I doubt whether they are necessary.
I wish to raise with the Attorney-General one other point on the Regulations. There is one Regulation, and that the first of all, which—although I may be mistaken, because these are complicated documents—I cannot find either in the Regulations of 1955 or in the Regulations of 1949 in exactly the same form, although something rather similar existed in those Regulations, and not in the Regulations of 1926.
The Home Secretary has said that these Regulations are infra vires the Act, and I have no doubt whatever in accepting wholeheartedly the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman that they are intended to be so. But I wonder how carefully consideration in draftsmanship has been given to them.
The Act precludes two separate types of Regulation. First, it states that no offence shall be created which consists only in participation in the strike. Secondly, it states that no regulation shall be created which imposes any form of industrial conscription. I do not find any definition of "industrial conscription" and I do not know what it means. Perhaps the Attorney-General knows, but I do not. At

least, Regulation 1—I think that I am quoting almost textually, although from memory—states that the Ministry of Transport may order, not only a port authority, but "any other person", to do any act which may be expedient or necessary for, amongst other things, the berthing or movement of ships.
Either "any other person" might include a seaman or it might include somebody other than a seaman. If it includes a seaman, obviously the Home Secretary is entitled to say on the penalty clause that that clause states that nobody shall be punished by reason only that he is participating in a strike. The right hon. Gentleman would have a good point there, but, as I see it, it is not quite good enough, because what the seaman would in those circumstances be charged with would not only be participating in the strike, but disregarding a direction of the Minister of Transport.
I wonder whether that is not, in effect, going against the proviso to Section 2 of the principal Act if the person receiving the direction is a seaman. If, however, somebody other than a seaman is ordered to move a ship and refuses to do it is this not industrial conscription? Again, I do not know what is meant by "industrial conscription". I cannot pretend to advise the House what view the courts would take. Perhaps the Attorney-General is able to do so. I think, however, that one view of what "industrial conscription" means would be telling a person to do an industrial act and then punishing him if he does not. These things require careful consideration before the powers are put into effect.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred more than once to industrial conscription. I wonder what he has in mind in referring to it.

Mr. Hogg: The proviso to Section 2 of the 1920 Act, in which, I think, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find those very words. A copy has now been handed to me. I refer, of course, to the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and to the first proviso to Section 2(1). Perhaps I had better read the two provisos:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the making of any regulations imposing any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription".


That was the last phrase to which I was referring. Secondly,
Provided also that no such regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike.
I have referred the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the two passages each of which has a certain relevance to the point I am seeking to make.
My last point is this. The Home Secretary has chosen, probably wisely, but still boldly, to play his cards extremely close to his chest. When my father came before this House in 1926 with Regulations which, as I have said, in some ways did not go the whole way of these Regulations and in some ways went further, he was made to explain over three days exactly what the Government proposed to do with their powers.
The ultimate test of the Government's action in this respect will not be the powers they take, because the Home Secretary is perfectly correct in saying that those powers will die unless they are renewed at the expiration of one month. The test of them will be the use which the Government propose to make of them. The Home Secretary has told us nothing whatever of the circumstances or extent to which those powers are likely to be used or the method of use.
As I have said, we on this side are prepared to trust the Government on this matter. But it is an act of faith on our part. The right hon. Gentleman must accept that the public are the very people whose essentials of life—and here I quote the words of the Statute—are in danger and have been declared to be in danger in the Proclamation declaring the emergency.
We understand, of course, that incautious words by a Minister in answer to a debate could spark off repercussions by some trigger-happy gentleman whose political opinions are not represented in this House, as we learnt from the Prime Minister only on Monday. All the same, the public are interested in this matter and if we take it from the Government that they intend to use these powers discreetly and moderately, we shall expect from time to time to be given the fullest information and we shall not necessarily

be content on a later occasion to be so easily happy with what they are doing.
In the course of his remarks on Monday, the Prime Minister said that the main problem—I quote his exact words—was import and export trade. I must point out to the Home Secretary that, although we on this side of the House agree with him, and although that is the main problem and probably the real danger, it is not one of the factors which the Emergency Powers Act enables a Government to take into account in tendering their advice to Her Majesty. As the Act stands, it would not be a legitimate motivation to take those circumstances into account in declaring an emergency.
What conclusion one draws from that may be a matter of dispute. Some people would say that it was, perhaps, a reason for not allowing the emergency. Others might say that it was a reason for amending the Act. Possibly the time has come—a great deal of industrial water has flowed under the bridges since 1920—to examine the phraseology of the Act in the light of contemporary economics. That, of course, must wait for another occasion.
I conclude by making one more request to the Attorney-General. When the Conservative Government in the rail strike of 1955 laid Regulations of this kind, the then Opposition asked the Government for an explicit assurance that, so soon as the strike terminated, the Regulations would be revoked. I ask for a similar and reciprocal assurance from the present Government.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is not alone in supporting, so far as some of us reluctantly feel that we can, these emergency Regulations largely as an act of faith. It will lie heavily with Her Majesty's Government to do exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in the last phrases of his speech: first, to bring the Regulations to an end as soon as the emergency is over, and immediately it is over, and, secondly, to use them minimally and with the greatest possible moderation. These are among the matters which are exercising the minds of hon. Members, not only


on the benches opposite, but particularly, and possibly for entirely different reasons, on this side, too.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was, in many respects, characteristic of him. He was generous enough to commit himself to an act of faith in the Government, but with that characteristic suspicion of the enemy, he questioned whether the Government would be equally generous in similar circumstances; and I thought that question itself rather ungenerous.
Many of my hon. Friends have deep questicnings in our minds about the wisdom and necessity of asking for these powers at this time, and not least because we are not always reassured by the ready support of Her Majesty's Tory Opposition in circumstances of this kind. I thought it characteristic of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, when giving us the catalogue of priorities of his suspicions, doubts and reservations, that he should deal with that most popular of popular subjects for Tories, the question of land. By all means, rule the waves, regulate the seas, direct labour and use the Forces, force even itself, if necessary; but interfere with control of private land? No. That is a fundamental matter for the Tory Party and on that subject the complete Tory came through in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks.
There, is no comparing the present situation with 1926. In the minds of many people there is a doubt whether there is any real comparison between the actual facts of the situation and the views which hon. Gentlemen opposite and even some members of the Government have taken in this case. I have doubts and I will express them in the context of my experience of the last weeks. I have spent a considerable time with the seamen and communities in the areas affected by the strike, particularly during these last several days of the strike.
I even begin to question whether a form of emergency powers have not already been used, before they have been brought before us for the endorsement of Parliament. Certainly, extraordinary measures have already been taken and the question is whether they were wholly necessary and whether, even now, it is wholly necessary to continue to use them.
This is a question in the minds of not only the members of the Seamen's Union, but of many other people affected. I therefore have serious questionings whether all these powers should be accorded to the Government. It is as well to express these views because they are felt, not only by many seamen and others who support their claim—as I think most reasonable people do, certainly from the point of view of the justice of the claim and many of the terms of the seamen's demands.
There is a strong suspicion that, above all, the seamen are being cast in the role of a test case; that their claim is to be made a test case for the Government's incomes and wages policy. I am not accepting that this is so; and hoping it is not. This suspicion, however, is one of the factors which have been creating resentment and suspicion about almost every other move on the part of the Government, however well-intentioned it might have been. This adds to the sense of provocation; though I certainly accept and trust it is not the intention of the Government. But a clear statement must be made at this time to clarify the position.

Mr. Paget: It is a suspicion which is not likely to be reduced by the complete confidence expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that the Government will behave like a Tory Government.

Mr. MacMillan: Perhaps I have already adequately dealt with that point, though on another point and in slightly different vocabulary.
The seamen feel that they are being endlessly lectured by virtually everyone. They are being lectured by the Opposition, the Government, hon. Members, the Press and from all quarters. There may be some reasons why they should be lectured on aspects of these developments; and I do not dispute that. On the other hand, the Shipping Federation seems to escape extremely lightly on this score. The federation has been more than equally intransigent in this situation, though there has been hardly a word said against its intransigence and unreasonableness.
Could not the federation have offered better terms long before this strike situation arose? Before the question of industrial action entered into the picture, when the last agreement was being negotiated,


for example, the federation might, for once, have taken the initiative themselves, at any rate in matters of modernisation and liberalisation of the Merchant Shipping Act and regarding working hours. The federation is as well aware as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and the rest of this House that this Act is out of date and is becoming rapidly an antique on the Statute Book. It embodies conditions which we would not dream of imposing on any other section of working people—disciplines and petty niggling restrictions which would not be tolerated by Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
The seaman is not only subject to those disciplines, but is living day by day in what is, in fact, both his workshop and his home, sometimes for months and possibly for years on end. He is cut off from all the amenities and comforts of his home and his country and is not part of normal mixed society in which the rest of us are privileged to live and work and pursue our domestic lives.
I recall the debates which took place in Parliament on this subject as long ago as 1936. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone will possibly remember them as well. I recall the priority list of grievances at sea which were given to us at that time and which were accepted by the seamen as being the chief complaints among their many problems. Speaking in 1938 about the situation then, I said:
The first subject of complaint may be taken as food and accommodation—and the second, hours of work and the way in which hours are worked. Then comes the question of wages.
Wages came third, although today things are somewhat different. In those days we should perhaps have been even more concerned as first priority about the proper and safe manning of ships. However, it was agreed then by the seamen themselves that food and accommodation was No. 1 problem, while the hours of work and the way those hours were worked came second—and wages third. Certainly, in regard to food and accommodation, there have to a large extent been great improvements, although there are still quite a number to be made.
The seamen do not now have such secure employment as they had for some years, particularly during and imme-

diately after the war. Bigger and bigger ships are being built, and ever fewer skilled seamen are required. Thus, the number of seamen employed will be getting fewer year by year. Ironically enough, out of this strike situation itself may arise immediately and continuously a further diminution in the number of seamen available in Britain, because as shore jobs become available, even during the strike and later, more seamen will continue to drift into them. As this happens, the mass influence of the Seamen's Union may, to a certain extent, diminish; and I only hope that no unfair advantage will be taken of that fact in future years.
I hope that the Shipping Federation, in any further approaches—which, I hope, we will see in the near future, jointly with the Seamen's Union—will be a little more generous than hitherto, and will not approach the negotiations in the spirit of people who are anxious to evade, bypass and dodge the implementation of vital obligations, as happened after the signing of the recent agreement. This evasion by shipping employers has been part of the trouble. Their actions also caused some loss of face on the part of the union leadership as a result of breaching what I do not think was a particularly competently negotiated agreement.
I sense that there is consciousness of some loss of face among senior officials because of some loopholes in the Agreement; but that, too, is something of which advantage should not be taken to embarrass them further. The Shipping Federation could have been more generous, even to the extent of pointing out the loopholes in the agreement. But the federation did not do any such thing. They did the opposite and exploited them. It is not a characteristic of negotiations across the table in British industry to find all the generosity coming from the employers' side.
Therefore, we must face the facts. Loopholes in the Agreement did exist and they must have been known to the Shipping Federation; because the federation certainly quickly recognised them within weeks of the agreement being signed and members of the federation took every advantage of this. Had they been recognised and something done about them at that time and the Agreement improved before being ratified the


country and the seamen might have been saved a lot of trouble now.
The trouble is that the agreement left so many things still to be decided and many ends to be tied up. The Merchant Shipping Act has also been left as it had been for well over sixty years. Successive Governments must be blamed for this. Both parties must take a share of responsibility for having failed to put the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act well in the forefront of their legislative programmes. The present Labour Government must take their share of the responsibility, too. All of us are to blame.
On the other hand, in the National Union of Seamen we are referring to a trade union which was not particularly politically alive and active till recent years and which did not have nearly enough effective liaison with those in politics who could have helped it most.
Why does the strike come at this particular moment? A strike at this moment is obviously the last thing which the seamen's union normally would have wanted—or wants now—but in the union's view to a large extent events dictated this situation and this action. If one looks at the history of the union over the last few years, through the period of the unofficial strike, the reform committee, and the growing ultimate unity of the trade union to the point at which it felt it had sufficient power to employ industrial action if forced to do so, one understands the reasons for the timing of a strike which, two years ago, could not have been possible because of unsatisfactory internal conditions within the union itself.
The way out is something more difficult for anyone to find at this moment than the factors which created and gave rise to the strike. I feel desperately sorry for the responsible leaders of the National Union of Seamen. It will he a terrible ordeal for them and for the membership to keep this union fully and effectively alive, to rebuild its resources and make it strong again after the strike is over. Strike committees may come and go, but the elected permanent officials will have to live with their union as a living organisation, rebuild its strength and continue the permanent work of a body for which the Government and

the whole shipping industry itself, should have the greatest respect and with which we should co-operate and give encouragement to the greatest degree in our power.
Therefore, having regard to all the factors which are known to us and allowing for the mistakes they themselves have made, we should nevertheless try to approach their problems, which have long enough been neglected by all of us, in a spirit of reasonable sympathy and not simply in an attitude of outraged annoyance at their action in calling this strike.
The Shipping Federation, I must say, could get people to present it case who would make the situation a great deal easier. If I were a negotiating member of the National Union of Seamen, I should not greatly care to have to confront Mr. Forbes Geddes in his present mood across the table. If ever there were intransigence personified, it is there. There has not been any official or public condemnation of that. The federation has been only very lightly criticised. Certainly, the Minister of Labour said his piece about it and the Prime Minister recognised, rightly, that there had been abuses of the agreement by certain shipowners; but the federation as such has very largely escaped blame and it certainly is not unblameworthy.
As long ago as 1938, when the federation was pleading that it could not afford to give better working conditions, better hours and wages to the workers in the industry, none other than the late Nancy Astor told us:
It is no good telling us that the industry cannot afford to make improvements. What we say is that the country cannot afford to lose the Mercantile Marine because young men will not go into it. No parent will willingly send a son into the Mercantile Marine until conditions are far better than they are."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1938; Vol. 338, c. 846.]
She also said that if we cultivated by the best agricultural practice every acre of land in the country we would still have to rely on the Mercantile Marine for most of our food and to sustain our industry. Today, the industry is much more prosperous than it was in those days and it can well afford to give better wages and hours and conditions. That is what the seamen are asking, a better basic wage with reasonable working of their 40 hours and overtime by the men engaged in the industry.
I make two criticisms of the action of Her Majesty's Government in this situation. The confrontation was created and established far too soon by the Prime Minister, broadcasting to the country in the early days of this situation. It is well to say and recognise this, because this is said and felt widely in the country and is one of the factors which have aggravated the feelings of those in this dispute and many sympathisers. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has a special burden and responsibility—more than any of us has—but at that particular moment it would have been as well to have waited a few days to see how the situation developed while there was still a lingering hope of resuming talks, which I personally was still coming across at that stage in Glasgow, in my own seafaring constituency, and elsewhere. To say with the Prime Minister's authority that it was a conscious confrontation between the State and the Seamen's Union and an attack by the seamen on the nation was to ensure it became so and help towards creating the worsened situation with which we are faced now.
I have a second criticism. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as an individual Minister, for the situation which arose in respect of what was intended, and well intended, to be the relief of the ostensibly starving Outer Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland. Let me be wholly serious and take away the adjective "starving" right away—they were not starving and are not starving yet. There was no cri de coeur or cry of desperation, no cri de désespoir from the Isles. There was no demand that the Navy should be used at once, or within a week, or a fortnight. There was the growing prospect of a shortage of fuel in one or two. at least, of the islands; and in one or two which have not bakeries there was the prospect of a shortage of bread and flour—perishables. The Seamen's Union quite rightly said that it was not prepared to see any area going short of food or essential supplies. It had only to be proved to them, they said, and they would see to it that relief was made available. They would be responsible for helping to get it there.
My right hon. Friend had consultation with the MacBrayne Company, which has

a close connection with the Government because it is heavily State-subsidised. It may be said that it is to some extent subservient to the Government, although I sometimes have had cause to think that the situation is the other way round. The Seamen's Union tried to negotiate with MacBrayne's on the basis, if need be, of what is now called escalation. The union said that it would meet local essential needs proportionately with vessels and manning suitable for the purpose. The union was not prepared to see the whole paid State-subsidised MacBrayne fleet put on, while the rest of its own members were living on £3 a week strike pay. On the other hand, MacBrayne's were not content to reach any realistic accommodation with the union at that time. I give one example. I am sorry that this is a local question, but it happens that this area was spotlighted and this is where the Navy first went in and where the consequences may increasingly be felt nationally.
A means of importing milk supplies was needed. When MacBrayne's discussed this with the Seamen's Union in Glasgow, the union said, "All right. Let us get a vessel of the right size for the strict purpose of taking milk to the islands and ensuring that there is no shortage." This MacBrayne's were not prepared to do. They wanted to use the largest ship of the fleet—and not for milk only. These facts possibly are new to my right hon. Friend. The union said that it was also prepared to put on even the largest vessel of the fleet, provided that it carried only milk, but then, MacBrayne's said, "No, it would be uneconomic." MacBrayne's wanted to carry general cargo on a normal basis in their bigger ships. That was stupid in the circumstances, and it led to a lot of damage to good will and to the negotiations breaking down.
Even after that, in discussion with the Seamen's Union I was assured, and am assured even now, even though the union was provoked and challenged all along the line by the use of the Navy when there was no demand for it from the islands, that the union is prepared to help to meet every proved need of the islands as it arises. In a strike situation this is a gesture which the Government should value and understand, instead of sending in the Navy, unasked. People in the


Western Isles know the feelings and conditions of those in the merchant service and many families there will in time, be very much affected. Yet in the Island of Barra they said, "We shall not go short for three or four weeks." when asked, "What will happen then?", they said, "We shall tighten our belts". They support the seamen. But I do not want them to have to tighten their belts exceptionally in the Islands. Nor did the seamen, so many of whom belong to the Isles.
This is the local case we put to the seamen. "The national impact of the strike on Britain as an island we in the Isles are prepared to accept and share fully with the rest of Britain. But the special additional hardship because we are small islands, isolated from the main body of the country, we are not prepared to bear; and we think that it would be unreasonable to be asked to bear it." The seamen said that they would not expect the Western Isles, the Orkneys or Shetland to have to bear any disproportionate hardship over and above that suffered by themselves, their families, and the rest of the community, as a result of the strike. This was a very reasonable attitude adopted by the seamen, of which no one in the Western Isles or elsewhere could complain.
The other day I met the employers in the textile industry, which is the major industry in my constituency, the Seamen's Union's local representatives, and representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union, many hundreds of whose members are affected by the seamen's strike. Around the one table they all agreed that nobody wanted to break the seamen's strike even to avoid its harsh impact on their textile trade. Like the great majority of people, no doubt they recognise the basic justice of the seamen's claim to fair hours and working and wages, and the long denial of that justice to the seamen.
The employers themselves said that they would not wish to be associated or appear to be associated with any form of strike-breaking and would rather send their arrears of textiles, which are piling up in the islands, to the mainland ports only under an agreement with the Seamen's Union in vessels which were approved, manned by volunteers or by

some special provision, negotiated with the union.
There is complete unanimity on the islands that the seamen have a powerful case. The islanders are prepared as a local community to share equally the hardships, if any hardships arise, of which there is little evidence so far, with the rest of the country. At the same time, they do not wish to be associated with any form of special concession which might appear to be strike-breaking.
This is the attitude of a community which is more vulnerable than any other part of Great Britain, because there is special isolation as islands within islands. They can be called off-shore islands, although I do not like the past political associations of that phrase. When this attitude prevails among people on whom the hardship may well come first, and with the greatest severity, if it comes, people generally, who are less isolated and affected, should be more willing to see the seamen's point of view and be a little more tolerant and understanding of their case.
So many people have accepted the sensational slogans in the Press headlines, fallen back on their own prejudices against all union activity, and added the two together to produce an attitude of hostility more in keeping with the mood in the House in the days when the 1926 Regulations were brought before it in the right hon. and learned Member's father's time. Others, in ignorance of the union's case, have simply condemned the seamen out of hand.
All the island people I have spoken to recently deplored the premature use of what virtually amounted to emergency powers, the use of the Navy and the use of Service men, who themselves are always pretty uncomfortable at being used in a situation of this kind. We have addressed an appeal about helping to get local textiles to the mainland and keeping textile workers in jobs to the Seamen's Union; but we have tried to do it the right way—as we conceive it—through the textile workers of the Transport and General Worker's Union themselves, affected by the strike in the islands; and we have found that that approach is wholly acceptable to the Seamen's Union, whether they can agree it or not.
With a little more tact, a little less public bulldozing, a little more give and take by the federation, less Press misrepresentation and a little more tolerant understanding of the seamen's case by some Ministers, it seems to me that negotiations in some form could in fact have got under way and might even by now have been nearing some workable conclusion. As a result of all the violent misrepresentation, the premature use of the Navy, and because of other faux pas in handling this complex and delicate situation, arising from failure of the federation and of the N.U.S. to come to terms on which to negotiate, the Seamen's Union has toughened over the last week. Certainly, over the last weekend its attitude has perceptibly toughened, regarding its full demands, regarding the terms for negotiation and anything else; though it has not closed the door. On the other hand they feel, as many of us in this party feel, that we must address ourselves much more resolutely to bringing strong pressure on the people on the other side of the table—the Shipping Federation.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I want to follow three of the points made by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). I am sure that the whole House will find itself most sympathetic to the case he has made for the Outer Islands not suffering additional hardship to that suffered by the country as a whole as a result of the seamen's strike. This seems sane, fair and sensible, and I am sure that it will commend itself to the House. Equally, the House will find little difficulty in finding general sympathy for the seamen in the predicament in which they find themselves. However, I feel that this has to be qualified. It is always easy to sympathise with human beings in a predicament. If that predicament is self-imposed, that should not preclude us from giving them all our sympathy, but this does not compel us also to follow their logic, because their logic may have led them into this predicament for reasons which we cannot wholly accept. Therefore, it is possible on the one hand to have sympathy and, on the other hand, to disagree fairly profoundly with their actions and the causes of their actions.
The point which the hon. Gentleman made with which I disagree most profoundly is his constant reference to the shipowners as "they"—his assertion that "they" can do this and "they" can do that. One needs to know very little about the economic fortunes of the shipping industry at present to realise that what "they" can do, in the case of a very large proportion of the shipping companies, earning, as we all know, the lowest return on capital of any major industry in this country, would not go far. What "they" can do as shipowners out of their profits and resources and reserves would not finance an increase of this kind possibly for more than a few weeks. In the case of a number of major shipping companies, which last year earned negative profits—that is, made losses—I doubt if it would finance it for even a few days.
"They" in this context is clearly the community as a whole, because it is the community as a whole which in the context of a long period of time—over a year—clearly bears something like 98 per cent. of the total costs of the shipping industry. This is where the flow of funds comes from—through the great apparatus of collecting rates of freight throughout this country and foreign countries which the shipping industry serves. This is the flow of income which finances any increase in the wage levels and the earnings of the seamen.
It has come as some surprise to me that so far no one in the House has referred to the remarkable coincidence that the new drug about which there is so much controversy is known as l.s.d. This is a drug which does two things. It produces hallucinations and it facilitates the recall of repressed events. I am sure that the ability to produce hallucinations might be quite acceptable on occasion to the Labour Party; but the ability to recall repressed events would certainly be one of those attributes which would not be eagerly sought after by, shall I say, the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. His attempted repression of the economy by various components of the national income over a very wide front must have produced by now what one can only call a palpitating neurosis in the Department of Economic Affairs. It


must also have caused some qualms to the Prime Minister, whose dexterity has certainly enabled him to conceal a number of repressions, both economic and non-economic. Indeed, the Prime Minister may be bursting at the seams as a result of his repressions, and the economy over whose destinies he presides is steaming at the bursts. The right hon. Gentleman needs all his skill to calm the electorate on the studio couch of the television screen.
Today it is the consequences of the event which have led to the need for the Government to take emergency powers that the Regulations enable us to deal with. Are we as a House of Commons concerned merely with the consequences? We are concerned with something much more fundamental. I mentioned the drug l.s.d. We are concerned with an £.s.d. deficiency which is now universally recognised, not only in this country, but virtually throughout the Western world, as a form of inflationary anaemia. As I understand it, not only this House but, if we are fair and frank, all other Houses in Parliamentary democracies have to confess to humiliating ineptitude when it comes to dealing with this problem.
It seems to me right, when Parliament is debating emergency Regulations, to probe below the surface and look not just at the immediate causes but at the fundamental and real causes of the situation giving rise to the demand for emergency Regulations. If the real causes cannot be eliminated by the use of emergency powers, then Parliament should ask itself how otherwise it can deal with them.
In my view, this strike is a direct consequence not of conditions at sea, not of the level of money wages in the country, and not of the, possibly, conceded abuse—though I believe this to be small—of the weekend bonus settlement made a year ago. I believe that it is not the consequence of widespread management failure in the shipping industry, though I myself at times have been a critic from within of management failure in the shipping industry. I do not believe that has been a consequence even of the obsolete provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, for not only in shipping but in any industry

today enlightened employers move with the times, not behind Acts of Parliament.
It is, as I see it, the clear consequence of galloping inflation not only in the United Kingdom but in ports abroad. Seamen more than any others spend a large proportion of their money incomes and, indeed, their real incomes in ports abroad. Of all sections of the community, they are probably better placed to experience what is happening throughout the world wherever their ships serve.
The depreciation of money abroad is much more serious than it is in the United Kingdom. The First National City Bank in its recent review gave some illuminating figures of rates of interest on short-term funds throughout the world. One can, I suppose, take some sort of inverted encouragement from these figures because the United Kingdom's position is relatively favourable, but it seems more the sort of inverted encouragement which a man feels when, on falling down a manhole, he finds that someone has fallen down before him.
The short-term money rates in about 90 countries are shown to be as follows: less than 6 per cent. in only 6 countries; between 6 and 7 per cent. in 27 countries; between 8 and 10 per cent. in 23 countries; between 11 and 15 per cent. in 9 countries; and over 15 per cent. in four countries, in two of which the rate is, in fact, over 20 per cent.
These figures show very clearly the depreciation in money which is going on throughout the Western world and the way in which it is reflecting itself in prices and interest rates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is not readily obvious how this relates to the Motion before the House.

Mr. Lloyd: I was coming immediately to the point that the seamen, who are responsible for this strike, are constantly experiencing these conditions abroad and, on their return to the United Kingdom, that experience is reinforced by the operation of an incomes policy under which the norm is becoming exceptional and the exceptional has become the norm. This is wholly relevant, I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the conditions which


have given rise to the strike by the seamen and the need for emergency Regulations today. The seamen having themselves breached the norm most successfully in 1965 with a 13 per cent. increase, following a 30 per cent. rise since 1961, it is hardly surprising that they should continue, or wish to continue, or be ambitious to achieve settlements of that kind when they are encouraged by other plus-or-minus 10 per cent. settlements in the community.
The leader of the National Union of Seamen, Mr. Hogarth, made the interesting remark some days ago that charity begins at home. This is a strange concept of charity. As I understand it, the sort of charity involved in a settlement of this kind consists of taking from someone, in this case the community, who has no power whatever to withhold except by the sort of resistance which the community is now making, at great cost to itself. It is not merely taking change out of the national collection plate; it is taking out more than one puts in. Of course, the seamen may say, "Why not? Others do it". This is a perfectly logical attitude for them to adopt in the present context.
I have posed a problem, and I am obliged to suggest a solution. Carried to its logical conclusion, this is a component of runaway inflation, and runaway inflation leads to national disaster of the type experienced over as broad a period as the 2,000 years from ancient Rome to the post-1914-18 war period in Germany. What happened in Germany was responsible for National Socialism and many of the evils which followed. We dare not carry these policies to their logical conclusions, and we are forced to find another logic.
Governments anywhere which surrender to inflation, however grand their social ambitions, however widespread their electoral support, however ingenious their economic and technical devices, have abdicated their responsibilities and will ultimately lose all effective control over real resources if they do not meet the problem head-on and tackle it successfully. Moreover, the damage which inflation causes to that part of the community which is dependent on sound money is always more widespread than can be repaired by what is achieved in

the short run by legislation. I give a simple example: the relationship between the incomes of pensioners and retired people and those of people currently at work is wholly dependent on the maintenance of the value of money.
It has been said that this is a strike against the community. I do not imagine that anyone will dispute this. [Interruption.] No one can dispute that it has that effect and that the community is obliged to deal with the symptoms. But are not all strikes really protests against the sheer infirmity and incompetence of modem Government in its refusal to accept, to proclaim and to gain national acceptance for a number of disciplines?

Mr. Eric S. Heller: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been on strike or has been in a ship. I have. I have been on strike over various issues, and most of them never involved the Government at all. They were about 6d. an hour or what the foreman did. It seems to me that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech is completely irrelevant to this debate.

Mr. Lloyd: I have never been on strike but I have been in a good many ships. In my view, what the hon. Gentleman has said is not relevant. The argument now is about whether a large body of men on strike—whether it be for 6d., 6s. or 12s. 6d.—are in any sense able to do this intelligently and to their own benefit within the context of benefit to the community under the system which we now enjoy. I contend that, under the present system, it is not possible. Too many people are quite unaware of the national consequences of their local actions. We must change this situation or the country will founder. It is as simple as that.
The First Secretary of State might plead exemption from what I am saying. The House will concede that he has made a great endeavour in recent months precisely to demonstrate this situation to the country. He might say, "My incomes policy is an attempt to do just what you are asking should be done". That is a fair point, but the simple answer is that good intentions are not enough. The right hon. Gentleman might refer us to Holland. We have heard a lot about


Holland as a country in which this type of settlement is agreed with great skill, great economic expertise and great satisfaction to both parties. But there was an article on Holland in The Timesthe day before yesterday, and, if one took out the word "Holland", it could be applied almost exactly to the situation here in Britain. So Holland can teach us little.
The United States is reaching the stage where it can teach us little. We have to devise procedures suited to our conditions which will meet this problem and deal with it. So far, there has been no conspicuous success nor are any conspicuou successful techniques being developed which one can say wholeheartedly are getting to work on this problem and solving it.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that, in the United States, a proportionately far higher level of production is lost through strikes than in this country, and there is much higher unemployment?

Mr. Lloyd: The United States certainly has higher losses through strikes, but the figures are not entirely comparable with ours. But it has much higher productivity. The increase in the American gross national product over the last 15 years has been phenomenal and that has made it possible for them to have many Clings that we cannot afford.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has the power to take out surplus purchasing power created by a settlement outside the norm. He can do so by specific taxation. Surely it is possible for him to conceive some form of surplus incidence payroll tax. In this way, if a claim were settled at about 15 per cent. whereas the available resources of the nation permitted a figure of only 4 per cent., would it not be possible to levy a specific tax, collected by pay, on all those salary and wage increases specifically the result of this settlement, with the money collected by and returned to the Treasury?
The main controversy would then be shifted, as it should be, to determining the size of the increase in gross national product. That is what the argument should be about. The techniques of distributing it should be a great deal more automatic. There should be more argu-

ments about differential increases and these would have to be discussed and agreed before general across-the-board increases such as that demanded by the seamen take place.
Such changes are a precondition of general increases in national incomes when they are a response to changing patterns of economic and technical opportunity. Unless we get this national response to changing patterns of technical and economic opportunity, increases in real income, which are the only increases with any meaning, will not take place as widely or as rapidly or as effectively.
That is the hard core of the problem, which, as a nation, we are refusing to face in most of the mechanism that we us to deal with it. It has underlain practically every serious strike, every wage claim and every settlement since the war. At its root is the problem of inflation and we have not solved that. While these emergency Regulations may solve the symptoms of this particular failure, they will not solve the problem itself.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I listened, somewhat unwillingly, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) with growing wonder. I can only assume that he actually prepared that speech for the debate we had yesterday. I am relieved that he has not been appointed chairman of the inquiry announced today by the Government.
I share some of the anxieties of my hon. Friends about the Emergency Regulations and particularly their timing, because many of us are anxious lest the announcement of the Regulations at the beginning of the week should have set back in any way possibilities of negotiation and agreement that appeared to some of us to be available at that moment. I represent a seaport town. The seamen are part of its life and many are friends of mine. I am much concerned about the possibilities that may develop from the use of these Regulations if ever they are to be used.
I should say at once that I do not know of any other occasion of a strike of such importance where the good will and support of the general public has so much increased during the strike. The way in which the National Union of Seamen has


handled the situation, including the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), has added enormously to the good will of the general public. Certainly, in a town like South Shields, there can be no doubt about the eagerness to support the striking seamen—an eagerness held back in part by the statesmanship of the union itself. That is certainly my experience.
One should pay tribute to the way in which the situation has been handled and the efforts being made by the union to avoid any inflammation of feeling in the country. For example, there are the efforts the union is making to ensure the proper handling of food ships coming into the Thames, and how it has gone out of its way to try and ensure that refrigeration facilities are kept working on ships with perishable cargoes and to ensure that ships, when they are unloaded, are "parked", if it is at all possible, in a suitable way.
It is an unusual situation and one we should pay proper regard to. I share also the feelings of many of my hon. Friends in the view that the claim of the seamen is not unreasonable. It is unfortunate that, to the general public, it appears as though two claims were coming one on top of the other at a very short interval. If one were to pay attention to the situation that would be achieved for the seamen were their claim to be granted in full, it would not suggest that they were claiming anything out of the way in relation to seamen in other parts of the world.
From that point of view, their claim could perhaps be more fairly stated to be a criticism of both sides of the industry in the past. We are asked to regard the claim in relation to the prices and incomes policy, of which I am a supporter because an effective policy is needed by the nation—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If it is a fair one.

Mr. Blenkinsop: —in order to achieve progress towards the planned society that I want to help to create. But, of course, the policy must clearly be seen to be just and fair and must apply equally to us in this House as it applies to others in the community.
It is most unfortunate that, to the general public, the policy appears to have been applied most severely to those whose incomes are amongst the lowest, while those more fortunately placed appear to have done better. Good reasons have been advanced for the exceptions but, if the prices and incomes policy is to have any chance of success, it must be administered both to help those left out in the general pressure for wage advances and to establish a better balance.
On these criteria, the National Union of Seamen has a proper claim for consideration. I agree with some of my hon. Friends. Many of us feel impatience with the owners for their present unwillingness to come forward with some advance on the offers which they have made up to now, particularly on hours, the major issue in dispute. I very much hope that the owners will not shelter behind the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House last night. While I accept that we must have a proper understanding of our economic situation and avoid pressures causing damage to the economic fabric, particularly for large advances, I do not believe that that can be fairly applied to this claim, especially because of the way in which it is being advanced. I hope that there will not be trotted out the excuse that no kind of offer can be made because of the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
I come to the most important issue of all: what action can now be taken to try to ensure that this disressing situation, this tragic situation as it is, should be brought to an end as soon as possible. This is a matter which affects us all and all of us have welcomed the announcement today of the setting up of an inquiry. We would have welcomed it even more had it been possible to make it a week ago. While we recognise the need for a thorough inquiry into all the conditions of the industry, we are concerned to have an immediate and rapid examination of the immediate issues in dispute and nothing should be done to prevent or hold up any offer which might bring the dispute to an end.
For that reason, I very much hope that the little glimmer of hope, which we were offered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour when he announced the setting up of an inquiry,


may broaden out into a shaft of daylight with the proposition that it may be possible for some interim suggestions to be made, if necessary, by the chairman himself after the discussions which he is to have almost immediately, suggestions to the owners, seamen and Government which might help to bring the whole matter to an end so that we do not have to wait until the formal meetings of the inquiry and lengthy discussions before the situation can be ended.
It should be possible to take advantage of the good will which appears to be available on the side of the National Union of Seamen to avoid this issue developing into an even more tragic situation than we have. I appeal to my right hon. Friends not to use the powers of the Regulations unless they are absolutely forced to do so. We want to have an assurance that they think that it would be far better to come to an arrangement with the seamen, who have offered to maintain essential supplies of foodstuffs and to do nothing which might lead to an aggravation of the situation. There are many groups who would like to take advantage of the situation and make matters worse, but I appeal to my right hon. Friends not to use the Regulations, unless that is vital for the country's food supplies, and, above all, to enable negotiations to start, even before the inquiry begins to sit formally, to see whether some agreement or compromise cannot be reached to enable at least part of what many of us regard as a reasonable claim to be met.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the good will being shown by the National Union of Seamen. Does he imply that the offer by the employers, which is already in excess of the national Norm, does not imply good will? If so, what sort of offer would he regard as defining good will?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am merely suggesting that in this situation and having regard to the average pay in this employment in other countries, it is incumbent on the owners to make some further offer to see whether something can be done to reach agreement.

5.35 p.m.

Sir John Eden: There appears to be some misunderstand-

ing about the last point which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) made in reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). I may have got the position completely wrong myself and I readily and openly admit that. I listened with a great deal of sympathy and interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), but I thought that the shipowners, the employers had already made an offer.
The hon. Member for South Shields quite properly mentioned that the claim by the National Union of Seamen followed very rapidly on that of 1965. He will know that that claim amounted to an increase in average earnings and therefore an increase in costs of about 13 per cent. If the whole of the new claim were to be met, it would mean a further increase in crew costs of about 17 per cent. As has been said, this is very much more than the industry itself can possibly afford.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: (Tottenham)rose—

Sir J. Eden: I hope that I may develop this aspect of my argument, but I do not want to be violently controversial in doing so and perhaps it would be safer not to interject.
I believe that this amount is more than the industry can afford. This is largely because the average return on capital is about 3 per cent., which, when compared with the rest of industry generally, is very small. The return in the rest of industry is much more like 14·6 per cent. The reason is largely the international competition in shipping.
However, in spite of this and in spite of what the hon. Member for South Shields has just said, the shipowners recognise and accept that the N.U.S. now wants direct overtime to be paid for weekend work at sea. My understanding of the position is that the owners have offered to do this in three stages over two years which would cost 5 per cent. now 4 per cent. in 1967 and a further 4 per cent. in 1968.
The hon. Member for South Shields spoke about being reasonable. I think that that is a pretty reasonable basis for negotiation. It is certainly an offer and


not the sort of destructive attitude which some people would seem to imply that the shipowners have adopted throughout. Particularly is that shown not to be the case when one recognises, as we all do, that the claim follows on the acceptance of the 1965 claim for a 13 per cent. increase.
I think that everyone in the House and outside knows that although we are discussing a claim for shorter hours, what in fact we mean is a claim for more pay, for greater rewards, for the opportunity to increase earnings. We all know that it is not possible for people employed in this industry to work shorter hours in the sense that they have more leisure, particularly when the ship is at sea. That is clearly not on. What we are saying is that a larger proportion of the working day shall be devoted to overtime, thereby attracting a higher rate of remuneration than at present.
The average earnings of ratings are, I am told, about £20 a week. To a large extent food is provided in addition to that. One point that so far has not been brought out, and it is one upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite who have a great deal of knowledge and experience in these matters might refer to, is that the average age of those concerned is surprisingly young. It is about 25 to 27, and a very large number of these men, the majority of them, appear to be unmarried.
I recognise that there is undoubtedly a great deal to the background to this, but so far as it concerns the Merchant Shipping Acts, I am told, as a result of the inquiries I have made—because I have nothing to do with the shipping industry; this is purely an interest which I have in this situation—that the owners are well aware of the need for the revision of the Acts and that by the end of January of this year they lodged their views on the Acts with the Government.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: (Penistone) rose—

Sir J. Eden: As the hon. Gentleman will certainly recognise, the next step to be taken in the revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts is primarily the responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Mendelson: I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's reference to the com-

paratively young age and single state of some members of the Merchant Navy. Did the hon. Gentleman raise that point as being relevant in arguing for a lower increase when we discussed and approved the increase for housemen in the medical profession, many of whom are equally young and unmarried?

Sir. J. Eden: No. I am not arguing in any way for a lower increase. What I am attempting to do, and I hope without adopting any particular side, is to assist the House to have a more balanced picture before it than it would have if one heard only one side of this. As with most disputes, there are two sides to the case.
On the point about the revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts, the responsibility clearly rests substantially with the Government, and they should take the initiative. I am not saying that previous Governments could not have acted in this respect. I am saying that the Government must recognise the amount of responsibility which they bear. I am glad that a Court of Inquiry has been set up, but is it more than human nature can expect to hope that the strike will be called off and the findings of the inquiry awaited? The inquiry covers a fairly wide scope and both sides seem to have committed themselves. I was intrigued by what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the other day when he referred to interest apparently being shown in this strike by those of political persuasion not represented by any hon. Member in this House.
What did he mean by that? I think that he was talking about the Communist influence behind the strike and I wonder why he did not say so. Why did he not spell that out? If this is really so, and I cannot see that there is anything else to it, although I may be mistaken, then the one thing we should all be concerned to see is that people are made aware of the dangers to the principles for which we stand by the entrenchment of influences of this nature. If the Prime Minister, as he clearly implied, deplores this type of infiltration, then it is much better that he should say so in language which is clearly understandable by all and particularly by those who are likely to become subjected to these influences which he deplores.

Mr. Heller: Mr. Heller rose—

Sir J. Eden: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am


interested, out of idle curiosity more than anything else, to hear what influence he has in this respect and why his name was brought in by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Heffer: The Prime Minister was referring to the 1960 dispute and at that time the seamen had formed within their organisation a movement known as the Seamen's Reform Movement. It was an unofficial body, operating partly within the union and partly outside it. I became a mediator in that dispute and helped to bring it to an end. It is in that context that the Prime Minister was talking when he spoke of outside influences. He was referring particularly to the 1960 dispute and the circumstances surrounding it.

Sir J. Eden: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for assisting me and any other hon. Member who is left in any doubt about this. I have always been told from the very beginning of this dispute—although I have never met the gentleman concerned—that Mr. Hogarth is an eminently reasonable man, a moderate man, and someone whom we would wish to preserve in the position of influence which he now holds in this important union. But it has been said that there were evil influences behind him and that it was these pressures against which he was having to fight. Whatever the devious interpretation which may be placed upon this and other similar references, I hope that I am not offending anyone by saying that there are Communist influences at work here and it is very much to the advantage of such influences that there should be economic dislocation brought about by this or any other industrial situation.

Mr. David Winnick: No one would deny that there is some Communist influence in the union concerned, as there is in any other union. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the whole dispute is due to subversive agitation?

Sir J. Eden: I would not go so far as to adopt the words of the hon. Gentleman, but I would say that the Communists of this country, as of any other country, are past masters in the art of fastening on to any particular grievance, industrial, political or otherwise, and so manoeuvring the situation as to gain the maximum advantage for their own political objectives.
That is what I am concerned about and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this, too.
It is this aspect which needs to be brought out more clearly. We have had a situation like this before, and I am wondering whether the Court of Inquiry announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will look not only into this aspect of the situation, but will publicly comment upon it in words of one syllable, which all of us can understand. Until the country is educated to be more aware of the dangers of political subversion by Communist elements, we will continue to have situations of this kind which, on the face of it, are due to a genuine grievance or misunderstanding, but which have been exaggerated and exascerbated by what the Prime Minister described as political influences not represented in this House.

Mr. Atkinson: It is surely recognised on all sides that the cause of this dispute is the rejection by the employers of the application for a 40-hour week and the fact that they have offered the 40-hour week over three years. Is the hon. Member suggesting that the boards of shipping companies are members of the Communist Party?

Sir J. Eden: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention justifies my proceeding further along that line.
Like every other hon. Member, I am very concerned that the Government. should have found themselves in a position in which they thought it essential to bring in these emergency powers. I agree very much with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said about the extent of these emergency powers. He was absolutely right—and I followed what he said with a good deal of interest—in pressing the Government to open their heart a little more to us and to give us some reasons why they want these far-ranging powers. I hope that the Attorney-General, when he replies to this short debate, will make it clear that should the situation materially change, which we hope it will, the Government will bring these powers to an end as soon as possible.
Looking at the powers, I wonder what is likely to be the position if the ports become seriously overcrowded. At the moment, many essential materials are


being brought into and sent out of this country in foreign ships. The longer the strike persists, the longer will British shipping lie idle in the ports, the more congested will the ports become and the more difficult it will be for ships of other nations to have access to the port facilities for loading and unloading.
I assume that the powers to be taken under Regulation 1 will give sufficient scope for the Minister of Transport to move British ships berthed in port in order to avoid the congestion which they might otherwise cause, but I do not see how physically this will be done or to where they will physically be moved. This is an essential aspect. Because we want to ensure that the minimum possible damage is done to the economy, we want to ensure that the maximum movement of goods continues to take place, if not, because of the strike, by means of British ships, then by means of foreign ships entering British ports.
Looking ahead, as we should do, to the time when the strike is ended, we can take a great deal of heart from the fact that the shipping industry appears to be entering a completely new phase. In 20 years, since the end of the war, shipowners have spent about £2,200 million on new ships. This country can be, and I am sure is, proud of the fact—this is in some small measure a reassurance to the hon. Member for the Western Isles—that it has the largest single active trading fleet under any flag, and more than half of it is under eight years' old. I hope that in presenting any case no undue exaggeration will be given to the lassitude of British shipowners, for they have served the nation well. The Mercantile Marine fleet is something of which we can all be justifiably proud. The developments taking place are extremely exciting and novel.
There is a great need to speed up the turn-round, and the time spent at sea is the all-important factor. It is therefore relevant to consider the amount of work being done to encourage the shipment of cargo in unit loads and the possibilities opening up of the large-scale carrying of cargo in containers. In view of the new developments in handling and methods of carrying goods, there is an urgent need to get a new spirit, a new

atmosphere, in the relationship between owners and the seamen who work on the ships.
I hope that the dispute will end as rapidly as possible. I hope even more that at the very earliest opportunity the Government will end these emergency powers which are extremely wide-ranging but which, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, I support.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I understand that shortly we are to go through the traditional form of receiving messages, not by telephone, but by messenger from another place. I hope that it is recognised as an interruption in the proceedings rather than the end of my comments because I may divide my remarks into two halves.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) raised some very important issues in his cogent remarks. His was a tremendously inspiring and deep analysis, a critical analysis perhaps, of our existing situation. He is making his contribution to increasing the value of the House and to stopping the steady decline which has been taking place over recent years. We all recognise the contribution which he is making to the seriousness of this place in demanding recognition for the ideas exchanged across the Floor of the House.
On a lighter note, perhaps, it is beyond my comprehension that at Llandudno one or two years ago the Conservative Party did not recognise his talents. If it had, we should have had a very different situain the House, particularly from an opposition point of view. Speaking as a Labour Party member, I welcomed his rejection because I think that otherwise we should have had a very much more difficult time than we are having now.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman posed a very important question which tied in with your own comments, Mr. Speaker, on what this debate was about. You said that it was permissible for the House to amend the Regulations. That is in contradiction to the situation posed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman because, as he suggested, if the House rejected the Regulations there would be a constitutional crisis of the first order. We should be rejecting, as


a Parliament, the advice of the Queen. Therefore, looking at the matter from that point of view, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was correct in suggesting, rather indirectly, that we were going through an academic exercise in discussing the Regulations in detail. This is an important matter which should be considered very seriously in terms of our relationship with the Sovereign, with the Privy Council and with the Cabinet and exactly what contribution Members are allowed to make.
It is suggested that the Regulations have been presented in this way because they originate from a non-political source. It is said that under our modern Parliamentary technique the only way in which one can introduce what is called a nonpolitical Order in the House is by doing it via the Privy Council. It is a process which needs to be examined seriously in the light of modern needs and the fact that we have a Government who believe in a modernised Britain and a modernised method of Government. They want no part in something which originated a long time ago. In fact, the original Act under which these Regulations are laid before the House was passed in the year 1679.
If one looks at the record of debate here since that time, one sees that it is not permissible for the House to do anything about such Measures which are laid before it; nor can we reject them without a major constitutional upheaval. I am sorry that I cannot have a word with our expected visitor to develop the relationship between the traditional politics of the other place and those of this place.
I believe that this is a juggernaut method of trying to solve the problems which face us as a result of the dispute. The needs of our times should be much more precise, less clumsy and less blunt. We want a much more delicate instrument to deal with problems. That is something else which we should inquire into in situations of this kind to seek ways of solving difficulties other than by this ancient and archaic method of using the sovereign process—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.2 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Military Aircraft (Loans) Act. 1966.
2. Public Works Loans Act, 1966.
3. Transport Finances Act, 1966.
4. Glasgow Corporation (Carnoustie Street) Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1966.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS

Question again proposed.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson: I was saying before our interruption that many of us felt passionately about this relationship between the Government, this House, and the Privy Council. A number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, and I conclude this part of my speech by saying that I hope there will be some serious inquiry into the whole question of this relationship and fitting in the modern needs of our country with what we believe to be a modern Parliament and a modern Parliamentary system.
I welcome the setting up of this inquiry, and the pledge given by the National Union of Seamen that it will participate in and co-operate with the inquiry, on the understanding that it is free to examine the industry in the light of the present situation, without any restriction being placed on it as a result of the policy being pursued by the Prices and Incomes Board.
The N.U.S. is very clear about that and that is why, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made his statement after Questions, I asked him to give an undertaking that the outcome of the inquiry, freely conducted, would not be subject to review by the Prices and Incomes Board. Many of us on this side of the House clearly understood my right hon. Friend to say, "Yes" in answer to my question, meaning that the outcome


of the inquiry would not be subject to review by the Board.
I am informed that on the Exchange Telegraph or the Press Association tape my right hon. Friend is reported as having given no answer to my question. This is an extremely important matter affecting the whole of this dispute and the participation of the N.U.S. in the inquiry. I hope, therefore, that during this debate my right hon. Friend will make clear what his reply was, and will, I hope, confirm that it was "Yes". A clear and loud "Yes" should be the answer to my question.

Mr. Hogg: Our understanding was the same as the hon. Gentleman's. The Minister nodded. He did not in fact utter any noise, but he nodded distinctly and unequivocally.

Mr. Atkinson: I think that my right hon. Friend made some noises while he was nodding. I am told that he said, "Yes". If any hon. Member has a contrary view, I should be glad to hear it, but I think that the answer heard on both sides of the House was "Yes". This matter is so important to the inquiry that there should be no ambiguity whatsoever about it. We should, therefore, have a clear statement from my right hon. Friend.
The seamen's case is based on their application for a 40-hour week. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said that this represented a 17 per cent. increase. He assumed that the hours of overtime would remain the same as at present. This is not the case, nor is it part of the argument put forward by the seamen. They grant, however, that if there is a reasonable amount of overtime somewhat similar to the present arrangements there will be a 14 per cent. increase in terms of total cost.
I think that the House ought to judge the merits of this application against the background of what has happened since the war, as has been done with doctors, judges, and with various other infamous claims which have recently been granted. We ought to look at the application in that light, and not merely say that this year the seamen are negotiating a claim of this size. The claim ought to be looked at against the background of what has happened since the war, because if we

do this we will get a more realistic appraisal of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the profitability of the industry, and I want to pose a question which is being posed to the shipowners who are adamant in claiming that the industry cannot meet this kind of increase. Let us consider the position of two ships coming into the London docks side by side—one a Swedish ship, and the other a British one. They are of the same tonnage, they use the same sort of fuel, their costs are the same, their port costs are the same, they have the same number of crew, the same kind of overall efficiencies are being employed, basically the same methods are being used, the overheads are about the same in terms of movement within the ship and dock facilities, and the costs involved are about the same. Given all those similarities, Swedish seamen earn about £91 a month for 192 hours, while their British counterparts get £58 a month for 224 hours.
What is the matter with British shipping? What is the matter with shipowners in this country when we have two similar ships with comparable costs, and the same kind of efficiencies—excluding of course, the system under which the respective shipping companies operate, because I suspect that this is part of the answer to the problem—yet British seamen are being paid about £58 a month for 224 hours compared with £91 for fewer hours being paid to the Swedes? That is a challenge which must be answered, and a matter which should be looked at by the inquiry being set up by the Minister of Labour.
As I have said, the introduction of these emergency powers is a clumsy method of approaching the whole question. It is archaic and outdated. We should have a much more sensitive system, in order to overcome difficulties which may arise in the case of disputes of this sort. The system should be sensitive, and under it we should be able to bring issues before the House and discuss a particular aspect of a problem without having to give a blanket approval which enables Ministers to go berserk and do what they like in respect of all sorts of situations. They should be answerable to the House on each issue, and not exacerbate situations needlessly.
It is now possible for the police or military authorities to interfere with


groups or assemblies of dock workers, or members of the Transport and General Workers' Union who may want to discuss certain aspects of the strike. Men coming ashore to discuss these matters can be interfered with under these Regulations. This does not help our democratic processes, or industrial relations. The threat to introduce provisions of this sort is an inherent danger.
I accept the sincerity of my right hon. Friends when they say that they will not needlessly introduce these provisions. None the less, they are there and they can be used as a deterrent against the democratic process of wanting to meet and discuss the issues of the day. These provisions are completely unnecessary, and are inflammatory in themselves. They are not conducive to good industrial relations. In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister who is to reply will give some assurances on this matter and tell us that we are not authorising a blanket approval for such methods.
Then there is the question of people driving vehicles. A fantastic situation might occur. We might have learner drivers or inexperienced drivers—even "dodgem car" drivers—taking out articulated lorries or driving passenger transport vehicles. My criticism of this blanker method of operation is that if such a situation arose it would be outside the control of the House once approval is given tonight and these questions are put in the hands of Ministers who can apply the provisions as they think the situation demands them. We know that we have a sympathetic Government who will be loth to do anything to worsen the situation, but the danger is there.
One Regulation that I totally endorse, and which I hope the House will—not necessarily because it is in the Regulations but because it represents something which should be built into our system—is Regulation 18, controlling prices. It is right at this stage for the Government to take measures of this kind, but we should warn the country what is coming along. The House must not be complacent in the developing situation.
This morning I made some inquiries about the prices of potatoes and tomatoes, not because I wanted to use them here but because I was concerned about the drift of prices in the last few days. I discovered that the price of

tomatoes in London this morning was between 3s. 6d. and 3s. 8d. a 1b. in the Westminster area and that new potatoes were being sold at between 1s. and 1s. 2d. a 1b. I talked to greengrocers about this, and they told me that the situation was beyond their control. They assured me that they were not making increased profits, and I accept their good faith.
Nevertheless, this weekend houswives will be called upon to pay prices which are very much in excess of the already inflated prices, and far above what they should be paying at this time of year. The situation has already been exploited by the purveyors of food, and the House should take cognisance of this fact. It is a fantastic situation, and provides an absolute justification for the Government's saying, "We already have the necessary Regulations. We have the power to lay before the House the necessary provisions". A call from the House should be made emphasising that the Government are prepared to take these emergency measures. We think that the housewives should not be exploited by the situation, and the Government should make this clear. The evidence is in every greengrocer's shop.
If the Government say that they are not prepared to allow such price increases the people—and the housewives particularly—will respond. This will give us some indication of the kind of climate we could create within the prices and incomes policy if we stopped chasing hares, in terms of putting the brake on wages and, instead, stressed the need to expand production. If we told the people that the Government believe in what: they are doing and are prepared to take action on prices we would have the necessary response from the working people in terms of a national productive effort the like of which we have not seen in post-war years. That is the sort of adventurous future to which we should be looking. Let us look at Regulation 18 as a blueprint for that.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am aware of the points in dispute, but I should not be contributing anything of value to the debate if I were to follow the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) in what he said in the earlier part of his speech concerning the matters in dispute. I do follow him, however,


in his criticism of the Regulations themselves. I agree with him that the very issue of these Regulations is inflammatory and likely to cause difficulties between the parties in dispute themselves and between those parties and the Government.
I do not think that I was the only Member to be disappointed by the Home Secretary's speech. I felt that it was not sufficient for him merely to say that these Regulations covered a wide variety of situations but that the Government did not intend to use them in a premature or unnecessary way. That was not being frank with the public, and was not following the precedents set in previous debates on similar emergency Regulations.
As an example, may I refer to Regulation No. 18, dealing with the fixing of maximum prices, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Tottenham. The public should know a little more about the intentions of the Government and the Home Secretary in the use of this Regulation. It gives the Minister of Agriculture power by order—and the order does not have to come before the House, nor is there any direction as to how it shall become known to the public—to regulate maximum prices in such manner as may be specified in the order. This gives the Minister power to delegate the decisions to somebody else, and if there is any intention of doing that we should be told. We should not be given a vague Order of this sort with no explanation of how it is to be used.
But more important, perhaps, at the moment than the lack of frankness with the general public in that way is the lack of frankness with the parties involved in the dispute. Surely the Home Secretary could have given some assurance and some undertakings as to how he intended to use some of the very wide powers, not only over seamen but over other employees such as dockers, contained in Regulations 1 and 2. The Orders which can be made by the Home Secretary and other Ministers by virtue of these emergency Regulations which we are asked to confirm are not to be brought before the House for further debate unless we on this side of the House choose to use a Supply Day in debating some Order which has been made by a Minister, or

unless we put down an Early-Day Motion, which may never be called for debate. The Orders made by virtue of these Regulations may be put into operation without any debate at all.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman being over-cautious in explaining what he means to do with these Regulations is calculated to increase confidence between the parties in the dispute or to decrease suspicion one with the other and both parties with the Government. If I may respectfully say so, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the kind of employer and the kind of employee involved in this dispute and the unique relationship between these employers, the shipowners and the seamen. I am afraid that I use "unique" not in its favourable sense.
We spend a good many hours in this building, but if we spent 24 hours of the day in the place in which we work, heaven knows how we should look at our problems. This is the life of the seaman who is living at and on his work, remote from his family for so many months in the year, and remote from his employers, too. The employers are remote from their employees in the relationship between shipowner and seaman. I find in representing a constituency in which a very large number of seamen and their families live that the seaman has an inbred reluctance blindly to trust anyone other than those who are his closest colleagues, and it is absolutely necessary to be frank with a man of this sort. I do not think that the Home Secretary has been frank in introducing the Regulations, and he has left us very much in the dark, and must have left the parties to the dispute in the dark, as to how he intends to deal with the Regulations.
In order to give an example of that in more particularity, may I refer to Regulation 1 This is a Regulation which gives the Minister power to direct any person to do any work in connection with a port. I am summarising it, but this is what it amounts to. It is, as it is worded, an incitement to suspicion and an encouragement for the parties to keep at arms length from themselves and from the Government.
There is no doubt but that Regulation 1 empowers the Minister to give directions as to work. The Act forbids the


Minister to make Regulations under which it would be an offence to strike. Taken by itself, Regulation 1 undoubtedly gives the Minister power to order a man who is striking to go to work. Taking Regulation 1 alone, this is its clear implication—that he can order a seaman to bring a ship in and out of port or that he can order a docker to sail a ship and a seaman to unload it, if he thinks that that might get round the Regulations. I think that he would be caught by Regulation 2 even in those circumstances.
It is true that if we turn to the penalty clause, there is the proviso that no one shall suffer a penalty only because he is striking, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, an offender will not be prosecuted for striking; he will be prosecuted for breach of a direction made under Regulation 1. The proviso should have been in Regulation 1, and we should have said in passing the Regulations, "The Minister shall not make any directions which would have the effect of making a striker a criminal". This would have been carrying out the terms of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. It is not carrying out those terms by putting the proviso in the penalty clause.
I fear that when the parties to the dispute realise these extensive powers which are being taken by the Government and the fear that they may be used if the strike goes on for any length of time, it will not be conducive to an agreement between those now in dispute. I therefore ask the Attorney-General, who is to reply to the debate, to go much further than the Home Secretary went in explaining to us how these Regulations are to be used. I ask him to give some assurances. I have five assurances that I want from him.
The first is that if a direction is made under Regulation 1 that a man shall do some sort of work in a port, and if that direction is made to a seaman who is on strike, and if it is disobeyed by that seaman, then that seaman will not be prosecuted. I do not want the answer, "If he goes before the court the proviso will apply and he will not be convicted because he is on strike." That is not sufficient. We ought not to pass Regulations in the House and leave the courts to construe them. We ought to

say definitely, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give me this assurance that in the circumstances which have mentioned, the seaman will not be prosecuted.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I can give that assurance now in case some of my hon. Friends may be unduly alarmed by these misconceptions.

Mr. Page: I am delighted to have got that assurance out of him. The fact that I brought him to his feet shows that it was no misconception and that it was necessary for this to be said.
The second assurance which I should like is that if there is a direction to an employee to accept certain employment, and if he disobeys that direction, then he will not be prosecuted. My right hon. and learn Friend talked about industrial conscription. The question was, what was meant by that? I would reply that I think a definition would be forcing a man to submit to certain employment. If it is to be said that it would apply only to employment by the Government, let us look at Regulation 2(3). The Minister of Transport pays the employee here. It may be that he is only indirectly the employer of the employee, but reading through Regulation 2, it looks very much as if there could be industrial conscription of employees who were told to go and work at a certain job and paid by the Government to do it. What is nearer to industrial conscription than that? But the Act says that the Minister must not make Regulations which could create industrial conscription. I should like an assurance that any man who refuses to work in a job to which he is directed will not be prosecuted under these Regulations.
Thirdly, throughout these Regulations, the Minister—not only the Home Secretary but other Ministers, too—is given power to make certain orders as to the manner in which certain things will be carried out. On the wording, they would have the power to delegate those directions to somebody else. I want the Ministers themselves to exercise their powers under these emergency Regulations. I do not want some civil servant appointed to give directions. I want the Ministers to make those directions so that they can be called to account for them in the


House. Perhaps I could have that assurance.
Fourth, I refer again to Regulation 2, and in particular to its second subsection. This gives the Minister of Transport power to subject dockers to directions to work. My constituency takes in part of the docks and I am most concerned as to the effect that this will have on the many dockers who live and work in my constituency. Subsection (2) of Regulation 2 states that:
Notwithstanding anything in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme …"—
and I will summarise the rest—an employer must take on a dock worker allocated to him by the Minister of Transport.
Is it the intention to break the Dock Workers' (Regulation of Employment) Scheme? Is it the intention to alter the terms of employment of the dockers? The Home Secretary ought not to have glossed over this Regulation. It is vitally important, and if the powers under it are used it will change the lives of many of my constituents. Will it be used, or what is the intention of putting it there? This Regulation and Regulation No. 1 had no precedent in the 1955 Regulation. They are new to the emergency Regulations, and that is why I question them rather fully.
Finally, if it is wrong to use these emergency Regulations to break a strike—and I think that all right hon. and hon. Members would agree that it would be wrong to use them deliberately to break a strike—then it is wrong to use them as duress on the employers to submit to demands by the strikers. Therefore, I should like to have the assurance that these emergency Regulations will not be used against the parties on either side of this dispute to try to force them into accepting the terms of the opposite parties or the terms of the Government.
These Regulations are for the protection of the public and to provide the service of goods and so on to the public. I hope that we can be assured that they will not be used in what I would think an improper way, namely, to force the parties to accept some demands either of the opposite party or of the Government.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who opened the debate, was interrupted from this side of the House by an observation with which I entirely disagreed. It is right that we should consider the Regulations with great care and should compare the precedents.
I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose filial devotion, I understand, is to a certain extent committed in this matter, was in the least right in saying that these Regulations were more strict than the Regulations to which he referred, which were made during the General Strike. No one would doubt that the General Strike, whatever view one took of it, was a very serious and grave situation, and that if emergency Regulations were made they would have to be grave and serious. Unhappily, the Regulations were in use during the whole of the long coal lock-out. I lived through that period in a colliery village, but it would not serve any purpose to recollect all that now.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had pursued his researches, as we have both no doubt been doing in the Library within the last 48 hours, he would have found that after the Regulations were renewed in the first and second months of the lock-out, in terms of a Motion of thanks to His Majesty for again signifying the state of emergency, there came a point when the then Conservative Government decided that thanking His Majesty for something which wai extremely unpleasant was leading to undesirable comments. Quite by chance, and without any indication so far as I could find of any change in the attitude of the Chair, that Motion was dropped and the House went straight on to the discussion of the emergency Regulations and the Amendments that were tabled.
In fairness, I should go on record as saying that I studied these Regulations with great suspicion and great care, because that is our duty. I respectfully say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wholly wrong in saying that these are grave issues. If one looked at the position from the point of view of the Parliamentary draftsman trying to


draft Regulations for this type of situation, and remembering his need to try to draft for all possible contingencies, I would say that the Regulations were pretty fair and moderate. I am perfectly prepared to trust the Government with them.
The real question is whether they are premature and whether it is necessary to declare an emergency. At the back of our minds is the question of whether the declaration of emergency is part of the sudden passion that seems to be afflicting the whole country to create an image, to create public impressions, to affect public opinion, and so on. I do not think that when I came into this House I had ever heard of P.R.O.s. When I heard hon. Members on this side of the House desiring to have P.R.O.s all over the place, I had the greatest possible doubt as to what services they would render. On balance, I think that they have been a liability. This growing attempt to have "Iron Chancellors", l'état c'est moi and so on, is perhaps a sign of the times. There is no personal connotation in those observations, even if it is possible to deduce one.
This is one of the undesirable signs of the times, and that is why I wanted to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who has been under very heavy criticism on many subjects. But, in my experience, the work he has done in relation to disabled persons' employment and other matters has been worthy of admiration. The replies which I have received from him about personal cases raised by me have always been admirable. He made a statement today which I thought was excellent. I do not always agree with everything he says, and no one would expect me to, but one can understand what he means. I prefer the clean, forthright statement, even if it is not what I would have said, to the statement that leaves us in some doubt.
In the absence of the Minister of Labour, I ask the Home Secretary to intervene on a vital point. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who made an admirable speech, said so many things which should be said and said them so much better than I could say them that I do not propose to try to keep the House for

more than a few minutes. This, however, is a vital and serious point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour announced in the House today—at a time when it is always rather noisy and one cannot hear every word the appointment of a Court of Inquiry with wide, and, so far as I can check—and I have checked on the tape—admirable terms of reference. I understood him to say that the Court of Inquiry would be asked to report very shortly, at any rate on interim matters which could bring the dispute to an end. I also understood him to say that both the union and the employers had approved of this step and were anxious fully to participate as far as they could.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham then put the vital question: are we still holding over the merchant seamen—after their participation, and after the report has been received by the House—the threat that their case may be sent back to the Prices and Incomes Board? Incidentally, the Board itself ought to be on strike today, because while we have been discussing this situation the wages bill seems to have gone up in one or two directions.
I was assured that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour gave an assurance that that had been excluded. I was assured that he gave a single affirmative which I did not hear.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson indicated dissent.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend shakes his head. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who was in a position to see, said that he saw an affirmative nod. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who was sitting next to me—he will not mind my quoting this, because I asked him what the reply was—said that he agreed. It is important that we should know this. It was a fair question. It is a question that affects the whole debate.
When my hon. Friend made the point, my right hon. Friend rose and went in the direction of the Box. I thought that he was checking up so that there could not be any misunderstanding. We might have a statement on this. Did the Minister of Labour say that that would be excluded quite definitely, or did he not give any reply? I have been to read the tape


which says that he made no reply, but the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, my hon. Friend and others assure me that he gave an affirmative nod.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: One is always in extreme difficulty in interpreting what one of one's colleagues has said, particularly as my eyes were not on my right hon. Friend at the time. The House will, I am sure, appreciate that there are great difficulties in basing an impression in reply to an important question not upon sound but upon a gesture which may or may not have taken place. I will, however, endeavour to find out what reply, if any, my right hon. Friend gave. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will mention it in his reply.

Mr. Hogg: I intervene only to say that it was our understanding that it was a nod—that was my impression. But I was not trying to put anything upon the right hon. Gentleman except for the purpose of his correcting it if we were wrong.

Mr. Hale: That is a generous observation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that if he had not had that impression, he might have said a good deal more on certain aspects of the argument. Certainly, many of us would have wished to do so. It is an important matter and it is important that it should be cleared up.
In this position, there is a good deal to be said for the fact that it is our duty to examine the emergency Regulations and say very little more. I was a little disturbed about the Western Isles, but my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has dealt with that very thoroughly. We were a little disturbed about what seemed to be a premature demonstration of what used to be called gunboat diplomacy when we were on the Opposition benches. Knowing a little of the Western Isles, I made some inquiries and I was assured that it must be a shortage of avocado pears or delicatessen which was being remedied. Now we are told that it was butter which was being taken and that the Silent Service would become the sacred cow. That has been dealt with.
For my part—and I do not think that anyone would suspect me of currying favour—having studied the Regulations, if we have to declare a state of emergency and if we have to make provision for anything, I think that such criticisms as have been made have been generally unjust. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) tempted my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to reply to one of his questions. It was, perhaps, a little significant that the final question did not elicit a reply.
My right hon. and learned Friend gave the assurance which I confidently expected from him in reply to the first question. I consider it all nonsense, with great respect—and I do not want to use the word in a derogatory sense in talking about industrial conscription in respect of the Parliamentary draftsmen—to say that one will be able to call upon somebody to help in an emergency.
I was deeply touched, as we all were, by the conception of personal liberty shown by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. Once land is touched or is taken over, that is the final injury. I could not think of anything more reasonable, however, than to say that if we are establishing food dumps, and so on as the situation develops, and if it is necessary to make provision for food distribution, we should have the right to borrow a bit of land on compensation without arguing about it. That did not seem to be the important point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Last night, I went through the 1926 debates on the Amendments tabled by the Labour Party. Virtually the whole discussion was on clauses which do not appear in today's Regulations, many of which I saw functioning in months of bitter hardship of something like a bloody persecution, in which our courts began to lose the confidence of the people, in which the police were being miserably employed to enforce Regulations which they disliked, and in which the lifeblood of the nation was being expended month by month so that our whole economic life was being drained away. I doubt whether anyone would like to get up in this House today and say that he thinks that the coal owners were right then.
I am a little disturbed about the lack of information. We have had a memorandum from the shipowners' federation, couched in effective and soothing language. If, however, the shipowners' federation is sending a statement to the House of Commons, it should at least establish some form of definition. When we talk about incomes, it is for a seven-day week. When we talk about percentages, the thing shifts. We do not know at any time in that memorandum whether we are discussing normal working hours or other factors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham made the point, which seems to have been accepted by the informed Press throughout this dispute, that our merchant seamen are worse off than those of many other nations. I have not done much voyaging, but late in 1945, on a professional journey, I crossed the North Atlantic in a banana boat immediately after the conclusion of hostilities. The circumstances were exceptional, because banana boats do not usually go to Newfoundland and they do not usually convey G.I. wives and their babies. It may be reasonable to assume that rather more crew is needed for G.I. wives than for bananas, but the accommodation for our merchant seamen was appalling.
Our merchant seamen were in the forefront of the battle from the start to the end of the war. By God we talked well of them then. They were great heroes. I remember starting the war with a machine gun to defend the Rolls-Royce works. We said that if those guns worked—and we did not often fire them —would they not be a dashed sight better on merchant vessels. A colleague of mine was busy designing a swivelling apparatus for a Bofors gun.
Our merchant seamen were the most exposed of our people continuously throughout the war. They were the first victims of the war, and they won an admiration which is apt to go the same way as Kipling described in words too well remembered for me to need to quote them.
Our merchant seamen have had a raw deal. The story of Samuel Plimsoll is an old one and we need not recall it now, but when I came back I submitted memoranda and so on about the accommodation of seamen. What has been done

about it? Accommodation is still bad and still compares unfavourably with that provided by some other nations. Over the years, however, we have had debates about flags of convenience, unfair competition and shipping galore.
Many people today have great sympathy with the merchant seamen. think that the whole of Britain would join in saying to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that we welcome the steps which he has taken today. We hope that they will bring this dispute to an end on honourable terms. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone philosophised, and very properly, about blaming one side or the other. At this stage, there is no particular point in recriminations and I do not want to expand upon it. Probably it is true that all three sides have made blunders in the course of this dispute.
We do not want to see this House being summoned every month to renew these Regulations. In 1926, the House was summoned three times in the Parliamentary vacation to renew the Regulations until, finally, some of the miners went back. The greatest demonstration of working-class unity in the long and sometimes unhappy history of industrial strife was broken after six months by sheer poverty and oppression. I am sure that the Government do not have anything of that kind in mind, and I am glad to welcome the announcement that was made today. I hope that it will mean an end to the fears that have been expressed.
Everyone understands the dilemma of the Government and realises that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has embarked on a difficult and crucial task. I cannot think that anyone does not hope that he might achieve it. I cannot think that anyone, realising the odds against him, does not realise that he may not achieve it. No one wants to say one word to prevent the substantial achievement of the ends which my right hon. Friend has in hand.
However, if we are to keep, as we have always had, the support of the trade union movement—and goodness knows that movement has been generous in its support, understanding and co-operation, not only to this Government but to the Government of which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was a member—particularly since the trade


union movement has shown its real patriotism in these difficult times, we must desperately avoid giving the impression that the upper bourgeoisie can have their demands met but that we cannot meet the demands of the large unions, even though they inevitably often involve relatively small sums.
We must face up to the dilemma that, in a sense, the Government are pursuing the same objective but by contradictory means. The constant observation that a man eats only three meals a day is not economically sound, because a man can dispose of two or three mink coats and still eat the same three meals. I equally believe that the restoration to Surtax payers—of whom I am one, and they can persuade me to pay—of a greater amount of spending power under the last Conservative Government did much to loosen the floodgates of inflation. Our failure has been to remove taxation from old-age pensioners and to leave the Surtax payers with the reliefs which the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) gave to them when he was Chancellor. This may very well be one of the most potent forces, not only economically but also socially and politically, because many of the merchant seamen do not feel that they have had a square deal.
If one examines their position in the economy of the nation and the work that they do, one may well feel some understanding and sympathy for the step which the seamen have taken, a grave step which may do harm to the nation. That is why I welcome what has been said today by the Government and passionately hope that this is the beginning of the end of this affair.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I regret that I had to leave the Chamber during the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). However, I was able to return to hear his closing remarks, with some of which I agreed. My support of these Regulations and the advice which Her Majesty's Government have given to the Queen to some extent depends on the fact that, unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I do not regard these Regulations as intervening in this trade dispute between the seamen and their employers.
It would be wrong to say that the Regulations are designed to implement the policy of the First Secretary. Indeed, if they were that would be an abuse of the powers under the 1920 Act. The state of emergency and the Regulations are right because they intervene in the dispute only to the extent that there an element of pressure on the community.
I wish to emphasise, in what will be a very short speech indeed, that this element of pressure on the community is becoming too common in industrial disputes, and I envisage a future in which it seems likely that it will become even commoner. It is regrettably coming to be accepted that the infliction of inconvenience and even hardship on the pubic is a legitimate weapon in trade disputes. This is due partly to the process which we have seen in recent years of the growing size of organisations on both sides of industry.
As a nation, we are rightly embarking on a process of amalgamating trade unions, and we wish to see that process go further. It seems to be generally accepted, whether or not an incomes policy will work, that it stands a better chance of working if both employers' associations and trade unions are bigger and cover a wider area of the industry to which they relate. Once that becomes the case, the dispute tends to become national on both sides.
This dispute with which we are concerned is national in scale on both the employers' and seamen's side. That is why the consequences of it are themselves national in scale and why we are considering these Regulations today. If this process is to go on, it seems that we will fairly commonly have to consider the infliction of hardship on the public as an attribute of a dispute between employers and men.
We have seen this in the last few years. Strikes in the public services, transport and shipping have affected the whole life of the country. I do not wish to say anything which would be provocative or inflammatory, but, casting my mind back, without mentioning names, I remember occasions when I think we all recognised that the particular occasion chosen for a strike, for the withholding of services, had been chosen because it caught the public at a particularly sensitive point; for example, Christmas and Bank Holidays. If I were going to quote


from any source I would quote some words used by the present Minister of Labour on one such occasion, but I will not quote any. We all know that this is true, and it illustrates the point I made at the beginning of my remarks; that exercising pressure on employers, through hardship on the public, is going to be regarded as a legitimate weapon. I am sure that none of us thinks that that is a good thing.
This prompts two questions. First, is this scale of disputes and arrangements a good thing? Must it follow that when we amalgamate trade unions and build up larger employers' associations we must decide everything on a national scale? Let us assume that it is possible for arrangements between ship owners and seamen to be made on another basis, and in other industries on a regional basis. For example, in the coal industry that used to be so, although it is not so any longer. I know that these are highly controversial subjects, but if that were so the consequences of a dispute would be just as serious for the employer affected but not so serious for the public, and the public interest would not be involved in the way it so clearly is today.
The second question which is prompted is of a more general character, whether strikes are a sensible operation at all in the times in which we live. People sometimes say rather odd things about strikes because they are all tied up in the history of the battle between employers and men. I have heard in the same week some years ago Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, speaking for my political party in this House, saying that he would go to the State for the right to strike, which was something we had always believed in as a party and always would, and the late Aneurin Bevan saying that strikes were coming to be something of an anachronism in the middle of the 20th century. That shows how oddly the threads can get crossed when people begin to theorise about these things. I am afraid I have more sympathy with the late Aneurin Bevan on this point than with my right hon. and learned Friend, as he then was.
Trade union legislation which supports strike action was passed to redress an imbalance between employer and employed which no longer exists. We might

do well to consider again fundamentally the whole question of the rôle of combination in furtherance of trade disputes, on both sides of industry. Indeed, if we do not consider it, I do not see how we can in any permanent and constructive manner solve the problems we face in our labour relations and in our economic policy.

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but he must not gel too wide in this debate.

Mr. Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed having wholly in mind the Regulations which are the subject of our debate today, but as I hope I made clear—if I did not I am at fault and seek to do so now—I believe the Regulations are. before us today solely because of the scale on which this dispute has taken place. What ought to be a dispute between employer and employee is in fact: a dispute in which the principal victim is the public rather than the employer Whilst supporting the Regulations, as of course I do, I desired to offer the general comment that, while it is true that this may be applicable to many other situations, it is also applicable very closely to this situation, and that this arises out of the progressive growth of the use of combination in furtherance of trade disputes in a period when there has already become established a balance between the supply and demand of labour so that it is not in the end the employer who is much affected.
In the inflationary society in which we are living today, it will not be the shipowners who will be very much affected in the end. I sometimes think that no one industrially is much affected by anything in such an inflationary society as that in which we live at present. Everything seems to be swallowed in the flush of inflation. The public as consumers are the people who are struck at. I venture to give one more quotation from a speech by the late Aneurin Bevan in, I believe, the same debate. I certainly remember hearing him saying that the real danger is that as producers we should give ourselves a black eye as consumers.
That is why I have ventured to say something which may be mildly provocative to hon. Members opposite, that we ought now to start thinking again about


the propriety of the role of combination on both sides of industry in furtherance of disputes about rewards and conditions of work. Subject to these general comments, I gave these Regulations my regretful but entire support.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: I listened very carefully to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and also to the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). In both speeches they made one single point which I think needs emphasising in this Chamber this afternoon.
The right hon. and learned Member said that the decision to bring in the Regulations was grave, but there was no symptom of crisis. The Home Secretary said that at present essential supplies were being maintained. So we had agreement by the two Front Bench speakers. There is no symptom of crisis and essential supplies are being maintained, yet despite that fact our country is going on in the same way; and no one understands that we are in a great state of emergency. Nevertheless, we have before us these emergency Regulations which we are asked to support.
I also listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I am sure that every hon. Member welcomed the very important statement he made when he announced that an inquiry is to be set up. We have a situation in which the Minister of Labour is setting up an inquiry with the full agreement of the National Union of Seamen on one side and the Shipping Federation on the other, and it was announced only yesterday that agreement was reached between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Seamen.
I quote from the agreement, in fact part of the speech made by Mr. Harry Nicholas, the acting General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union:
An understanding has now been reached that our members will be expected to continue to do their normal work as dockers. Shore gangs and riggers will continue to do their normal practice but not where the work was previously done by the National Union of Seamen members.
We have had the statement made in the House by the Minister, the agreement

between the National Union of Seamen and the Transport and General Workers Union and the agreement between the two Front Benches that there is no symptom of crisis and essential supplies are being maintained.

Mr. John Homer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the reference in the trade union agreement to the work of riggers means that ships alongside, having discharged their cargo, will then be moved out to buoys or to midstream so that further ships can be brought in for discharge?

Mr. Heffer: This is true. It underlines my point. Why do we need to pass any Regulations declaring a state of emergency? There are some disturbing aspects of the whole question. I was one of the three or four people who became mediators in the strike of 1960. Incidentally, although that was not an official strike, it was a large strike affecting most of the big shipping companies. Seamen were on strike in London, Southampton, Liverpool, on the North-East Coast, and in Glasgow. The National Seamen's Reform Movement was set up. Even though obviously the economy was being affected, the Government at that time—not a Labour Government, but a Tory Government—did not declare a state of emergency.
That point must be made, because this time the seamen went on strike on a Sunday evening and within two days my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on television telling the whole nation that this was a dispute against the State. I do not know who advises my right hon. Friends in industrial relations. Whoever these people are, they must be the most inept people in the world, because if it is desired to harden the workers in an industrial dispute the thing to do is to go on television and make statements of that kind.
On Monday of this week, the very day on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was trying to get the two parties together, a statement was being made in the House to the effect that a state of emergency had been declared. I have had many dealings with industrialists and trade unionists. Can hon. Members picture the employers and the national union both in their little rooms with the Minister trying to get some


agreement? Perhaps some slight movement was about to be made. Then a Mote was passed in to Mr. Ford Geddes saying, "The Prime Minister has just declared a state of emergency". Mr. Ford Geddes says "Thank you very much. I have no need to do anything. Why should we give anything away? A state of emergency has been declared. Obviously;he Government will involve itself in a struggle with the seamen". So he sits back and hides behind the Government's skirts. It could have been the National Union of Seamen. The General Secretary could have said, "In that case, if this is the attitude, we will not give anything away. We will fight this out to the bitter end".
Who in God's name is giving our people this sort of advice? In industrial disputes, one needs to be very delicate in the way one negotiates and handles things. Subjects need to be approached very carefully. One must ensure that, if there is some slight movement in the right direction, one can keep the thing going in that direction. To talk about a state of emergency and to go on television in this way does not help to solve this question.
At the moment the docks are in a very tender position. The dockers are in asosciation with the seamen. At any moment there could be a flare-up. In Liverpool yesterday the dockers stopped work, for three reasons—first, because of their sympathy with the seamen, their solidarity with their brother trade unionists in dispute; secondly, because of their own internal attitudes; and, thirdly, because they are not satisfied about the amendments being proposed by the Government to the National Dock Labour Scheme. Anything which can set alight this position does not help and may mean that the seamen's strike can go on much longer than it ought to.
I have said in the House and elsewhere that the basic question in this dispute is that of hours, not that of wages. It is true that the seamen want a reduction in hours without a reduction in wages, but it is the question of hours which is the issue. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that another offer should be made by the employers, he meant that it was on the question of hours that the offer

should be made. I believe that the Government should tell the employers, "You are not going to hold the country to ransom. You are not going to put the economy in a state of jeopardy because of a refusal to make some further offer on hours".
That pressure should be applied to the employers. The Prime Minister should not go on television or declare a state of emergency and give the workers the impression that the whole battle is against them. The suggestion was made that if this claim was granted it would breach the dyke of the prices and incomes policy. That dyke has been well breached. It was breached by the increase in doctors' salaries. It was breached by the increase in judges' salaries, and, if you like, even when we got our salary increase, because that could have been handled differently.
We must be honest. I make this plea to the Government. In view of the statements made by the spokesmen from both Front Benches to the effect that there is no great crisis, the Government should withdraw these Regulations. They are unnecessary. I plead with the Government to withdraw them now so that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour can pursue the policy he is pursuing to try to get a settlement.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that these Regulations were much severer in some respects than the 1926 Regulations. I do not know this, because I have not studied the 1926 Regulations in detail.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman is the second one who has made this mistake. What I intended to say—we shall see in HANSARD tomorrow whether I was successful—was that they were the most severe since 1926. There are one or two that did not occur even in 1926.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman underlines the point I was on. I have not read the 1926 Regulations. I have read the 1949 and the 1955 Regulations. When these Regulations were issued, I made it my business to go to the Library and study the previous Regulations and compare them with these. These Regulations are much more severe than either of those Regulations. Yet this is a Labour Government. It must give the impression to the workers and to the trade union


movement that the Regulations have been introduced for a purpose, the purpose being to stop a breach in the dyke of the prices and incomes policy, and that the poor seamen are to be used for that purpose.
As for Regulation 18, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) made the position clear. I agree with him. I would very much like to see Regulation 18 in operation in any case, whether we have these Emergency Regulations or not.
But let us look at some of the others. First, Regulation 26, which is headed "Trespassing and Loitering". What does that mean? Does it mean that a group of dockers having a meeting close by something which is being directed by the Minister will be treated as trespassing and loitering, so that action will be taken against them? We have been told about Regulation 1, and I am very glad about that. This was a point which had worried me. In my opinion, Regulation 1 contradicts the Act, but we have been given an assurance that it does not mean that seamen can be directed even though they are on strike.
But I want to pursue this a little further. What does Regulation 1 mean? It provides that,
The Minister of Transport may, in the case of any port, give such directions to the port authority or any other person as appear to him to be necessary or expedient …
If it does not mean seamen, who does it mean? Which sections of the community are to be covered by such directions? We have a right to know because the House is being asked to pass all these Regulations.
I return to the point about trespassing and loitering. I ask again: does Regulation 26 mean that certain sections of the workers who may be showing their sympathy with the seamen and who are in or around the docks at a particular time can be dealt with under these Regulations once they are in operation? Regulation 26(3) opens with the words:
No person loitering in the vicinity of any premises used or appropriated for the purposes of essential services …
What does that mean? All these are matters which ought to be clearly defined. We want to know against whom they are

being directed and precisely what the intention is.
We are told that there is power to arrest without warrant. Regulation 29 provides that,
Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to have committed an offence against any of these Regulations".
This is very serious, and I want the House of Commons to treat it seriously. We have had emergency powers on only four occasions since 1926, apart from war time, and I hope that no one in the House will allow these Regulations to go through unless we are given the clearest assurances. What is likely to happen? Whenever emergency regulations are brought in, because of their hard and bitter experiences in the past, there is immediate hostility on the part of trade unionists to these things, and it hardens the whole atmosphere. It does not help towards solving the dispute. I want a clear statement from my right hon. Friend and a clear assurance that these Regulations are not directed in any way against the National Union of Seamen or against any of the strikers and that they cannot be interpreted as an attack on them.
On an earlier occasion, I spoke of the need to put pressure on the employers so that we could have a settlement of the dispute. I still think that this is the way forward. I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to consider whether, under the emergency powers, we should take over the shipping industry on a temporary basis and run it with a temporary subsidy, setting a date to get these matters ironed out, in order that we might achieve stability in the industry for a long time ahead. I was told that this was not the way we ought to proceed, but I notice that under Regulation 22 it is possible for a competent authority, if necessary or expedient, to
requisition any chattel in Great Britain (including any vessel or aircraft …
Does this mean that we can take over the ships and run them ourselves if a settlement cannot be reached within a short time and if these Regulations are passed? Incidentally, I have a horrible feeling that, in spite of my endeavours to persuade the Government to withdraw them, these Regulations are likely to be passed. But could that be done according to that interpretation of the Regulation? I ask


the House and the Government to consider very seriously the whole question of a temporary subsidy so that we could run the industry on that basis and get an early solution to this problem, assuming that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has not been immediately successful in his endeavours.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. John Horner: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) in expressing disquiet at the fact that the House is being asked to approve these emergency Regulations today. I find myself in a difficult position. I agree with my hon. Friend that, if the introduction of these Regulations could have been postponed, we might well have reached a state of affairs in which they would never have been necessary.
At this stage of the debate, I shall riot go into the Regulations in detail, but, whether or not they are more severe than the Regulations brought in at the General Strike, we are all agreed this evening that they are more severe than any Regulations used in any emergency situation since the General Strike. Yet, surely, no one is contemplating a situation in which this country became involved in circumstances in any way similar to those which we had to face in 1926. There is every evidence of this. Even Mr. Jack Dash, the unofficial leader of certain sections of the London dockers, has urged those who follow him that any action they take in the London docks must be wholly in accordance with the policy of the Transport and General Workers' Union. If Mr. Jack Dash in London's dockland is taking that view, I see no emergency arising which requires Regulations of this kind.
A heavy duty rests upon my right hon. a nd learned Friend the Attorney-General tonight. These Regulations could not have been easily or lightly drawn. They roust have been in contemplation for a considerable time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, I think it wholly unfortunate that their introduction was announced at the time it was. Now that we have read them at leisure, I am sure that many of us must be deeply disturbed by some of the provisions. I will quote only one—Regulation 30. It does not deal with an offence under these Regulations but with the offence which

is committed by attempting to commit an offence. It says:
Without prejudice to the operation of section 8 of the Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861 … any person who attempts to commit, conspires with any other person to commit, or does any act preparatory to the commission of, an offence against any of these Regulations shall be guilty of an offence against that Regulation.
Whether or not this is common practice in drawing up emergency Regulations, it seems to me that the Government have stretched them to the limit—apart from instituting "thought police"—in being able to charge someone with preparing something which, it is argued, might lead further on to the commission of an offence under these Regulations. We do not need these Regulations. All of us who speak in this debate are most anxious to do nothing to exacerbate the present grievous position in the shipping industry as we examine the circumstances which have led to the Government taking this step. I am sure that everyone hopes earnestly that the step taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will lead to a settlement of this tragic dispute.
I have been puzzled by Government policy in the last few weeks and feel bound to express that puzzlement tonight. The powers which the Minister of Labour has now exercised he has had all the time during which the dispute has been brewing up. Why has it taken two weeks before he has exercised that authority? I am informed that it is about seven weeks since the National Union of Seamen met the Shipping Federation employers. It is a fantastic situation for a country largely dependent upon shipping to find itself in.
Everybody knew that the strike would take place. Both sides were set on a collision course. That is why I am puzzled, and we should have an explanation from the Government of why they felt it impossible for the Minister to exercise his authority as he has done today. There may be good reasons. Perhaps one side or the other was not prepared to co-operate. Nevertheless, without such co-operation the Minister still had power to create such an inquiry as he has set up today.
If I were back at sea and had just come in from four-and-a-half months on the Australian run, or had spent the winter in what is called "punching" the


Western Ocean, or had spent the spring in the Atlantic gales, and had been met at the bottom of the gangway by a union official who told me that he did not wish me to sign on again until I had the all-clear from the union, I would be very pleased. I would regard him as a friend. There is no urge upon a seamen to sign on again. I would, in these circumstances, like to go home to my wife. I would know that I was not on strike. It is necessary to point out that the seamen are not on strike. No contract is being broken. No orders are being disobeyed. No breach of the Merchant Shipping Act has been committed. These men are not presenting themselves for hiring.
If I had been on the Australian run in the last four-and-a-half months, I would not have been here for the election. I would not have been able to see television programmes. I would not have been able to follow closely the political developments of the last three months. I would have been puzzled, having been told by my union official not to present myself for hiring, to be told later that I was striking against the State.
The voyage just completed may well have been hard. I would have recalled that, on many occasions, there were sharp disputes between me and my mates in the foc'sle and the chief mate and bosun. When failing to present myself for hiring, I would have thought that I was taking action against the people whom the mate and the bosun represented—the owners.
I should be disturbed and unhappy to know that I was in fact striking against the State and to find the Government being obliged to present to the House and the nation a state of emergency arising in such dire and grievous proportions that these Regulations must be passed. I should have been most unhappy about it. I should want to know who my friends were.
It is difficult for people in this House who have not worked at sea to put themselves in the position of a merchant seamen. Hon. Members opposite have pointed out the very isolation of life aboard ship and the narrow and confined association between the officers and the men, with the officers as the visible and outward sign of the owners. Naturally, sharp differences occasionally occur. But

these people in their industrial relations are governed by an Act of Parliament over 80 years old which everyone knows is outmoded and must be revised.
I do not want to become involved in great detail on the question of what the dispute is about. Hon. Members have given enough indications and I do not want to prejudge, as it were, the outcome of the committee of inquiry set up by my right hon. Friend. But, in my experience, the most important book aboard a Merchant Navy vessel is not the log book, which is the master's responsibility, but the overtime book. There are many disputes about overtime. In the hand-out sent to hon. Members by the Shipping Federation today it is said that when the 44-hour week was introduced those few in the ships who do not have to work overtime were very dissatisfied. The hand-out states:
There are not the same leisure attractions on a ship at sea as there are ashore …
Then comes this astonishing revelation:
…the main aim of the seamen is to accumulate as high earnings as possible during the voyage.
I agree with that. Dr. Johnson said that no man went to sea who had sufficient intelligence to get himself locked up in gaol. People go to sea not for mere pleasure, but to accumulate earnings. I am entitled to say to the Shipping Federation that the main aim of the owners is to accumulate profit as high as possible during the voyage.
We have to talk in terms which are applicable to and consistent with the way in which these 50,000 or 60,000 seamen will come to see the dispute as more and more of them reach these shores. It is a very special form of dispute. It is not a strike. It is a dispute which will become cumulative. Every day National Union of Seamen officials will have to see more and more seamen as they are paid off at various ports and explain the full facts of the case and the incidents of the last ten days as clearly and as simply as possible, so that these men who may be returning from long voyages can appreciate the facts.
It is because of this that I am disturbed about the presentation of these emergency regulations. They are unnecessary and they will not help. We are not on the eve of a General Strike. Ships are


not cluttering up our ports. As has been said, only yesterday there was a vital trade union agreement between the two key unions in the docks to permit ships which have discharged their cargoes to move away and other ships to come in.
We are not on the eve of some dire emergency, but as the seamen return to these islands and find that they are coming into a situation of this kind they will discover that they are being charged with creating this dreadful situation, and that will not help. This move is unnecessary and unwise. The union is operating with a maximum of responsibility it is entitled to the support of fellow rade unionists. It is entitled to the support of a sympathetic Government.
There is an enormous backlog of dissatisfaction with bad conditions and of bitterness in the industry going back half a century. The pus from this boil is now oozing out and it is a very unpleasant experience for us. The seamen have been the forgotten men. When they are on the Western Ocean or on the "Aussie run", we do not think about them. We are thinking about them now. I earnestly hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will do his best to allay the fears of my hon. Friends and myself and do his best to make it quite clear to the seamen who are here and to those who will be arriving in the next day or two that the steps which the Minister of Labour is taking will in no way be qualified or prejudiced or jeopardised by the exercise of these unfortunate regulations.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I wish to concentrate my remarks on two aspects of the present position. The first is the situation as it will be after ten o'clock tonight and the second is the background of that decision which raises certain fundamental questions about future industrial relations.
After these Regulations have been passed, we shall have set up a Court of Inquiry as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour this afternoon and the powers which the House is discussing will be in the hands of the Government. The fact that these two decisions will have been taken side by side will be of great importance to the

continuation of the dispute and to our hopes that it might be brought to an early conclusion.
When the Court of Inquiry begins its work, it will be essential that it has the continued good will and co-operation of the two sides involved in the conflict. I was very glad to hear that the two sides have announced that they will fully cooperate with the Court of Inquiry.
I should like to say in passing that, having been one of the critics of the Minister of Labour when he made his first announcement on the Monday after the strike started, when I said that his tone had been too one-sided and that pressure should be put on the employers and not only on the National Union of Seamen, I should like to say that I very much welcomed the tone as well as the substance of his announcement this afternoon.
When the inquiry gets to work, two major problems will be facing the Government. First, having been granted these powers by Parliament, they will have said that they will be most careful about making any decision to use any one of them. That announcement is of great importance in helping to create the atmosphere within which we all hope to arrive at a solution to the conflict as speedily as possible.
The precise problem which will then arise has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Homer). We have an important agreement between the seamen and the dockers, represented by their respective trade unions, making it certain that the arrival of essential goods will be looked after by the men who do the work in the docks.
In those circumstances, will the Government reaffirm that for their part they will pay heed to the statements of Mr. Hogarth on several occasions during the last seven days or so, when he has said that while the union would regard the arrival of essential food and the creation of space in the docks to allow ships carrying the goods to arrive as legitimate within the confines of Government action, they would be obliged on the other hand to take a completely different view if the Navy were used to move ships merely for normal ordinary trade in all kinds of


things, because that would obviously be the use of military force to break the strike?
Given the agreement between the dockers and the seamen, I ask the Government to reaffirm that they have no intention of using naval forces to move ships in the second category mentioned by Mr. Hogarth. I would assure them after the agreement reached between the seamen and the dockers, and the very responsible attitude adopted by the National Union of Seamen, that it will not be necessary for the Government to use the powers which they are asking the House to grant them this evening. If the situation is properly approached and properly preserved it should mean that at no time will these powers be necessary.
The second point I want to raise concerns the attitude and activities of the Government while the Court of Inquiry is sitting. I should be grateful if I could have the attention of my right hon. Friend the learned Attorney as I turn to this point, without in any way underestimating the great importance of the private communications which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is having with him. I am trying to make a point and I should like the attention of the representative of the Cabinet who is to reply to this debate.
The second point concerns the attitude of the Government, and their activities while the Court of Inquiry is sitting. It has already been indicated, during Question Time today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who now sits on the back benches, but who has great experience in these matters as a former senior member of many Cabinets, that the Court of Inquiry will take some considerable time. Although we all welcome the announcement of the setting up of the Court of Inquiry, and the fact that it has been asked to prepare an interim report, even that report might take 10 to 12 days. Therefore, I urge the Government that they should continue their activities to bring the two sides together while the Court of Inquiry is in session.
The Minister of Labour gave a hopeful reply when the problem was raised this afternoon. He said that the President of the court would speak to the two sides just before the inquiry opened. Although

this announcement is very welcome, I want the Government to take further steps in trying to solve this problem. I hope that both sides will meet the Chairman of the Court and that there will be some positive results even before the inquiry begins. We must bear in mind the situation which will arise if these talks do not produce any result. It is the Government's duty to put pressure upon the employers so that they will produce an improved offer for the consideration of the National Union of Seamen. In this serious situation it would be quite wrong of the Government not to take any further action just because the Court of Inquiry was sitting. In the better atmosphere created, I hope, through the work of the inquiry, if the Government were to urge the employers to make such an improved offer there would then be some hope that the other side would be prepared to start discussions.
I want to deal with the background of the dispute, because it has some disquieting aspects and some serious implications for the future of our industrial relations. From the very beginning some Members have felt that the Government adopted too much of a one-sided attitude to this conflict. This was shown very clearly in the television broadcast made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister just after the dispute had started. My right hon. Friend has, not only as head of the Government, but over many years, rendered valuable personal service to the trade unions, and there is no one here who can teach him anything about relations with the trade union movement. He is on record as having done excellent work for the textile unions and having been one of those who worked out a national fuel policy for the National Union of Mineworkers. Over the years he has worked in close co-operation with the trade unions on such matters.
However, in this television broadcast he was wrong on timing, wrong in tone and wrong in substance. He was wrong in timing because it was far too early to rush ahead with that type of broadcast on the second day of the dispute. We are told that one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend decided on the timing of his broadcast was not because it was intended for home consumption, but, very largely because he wanted to


reassure our creditors abroad that the Government were going to adopt a very stern line with the seamen—that it was part of what is called the defence of the prices and incomes policy. One can scarcely discern any other reason why such a broadcast should have been made then.
Secondly, the broadcast was wrong in tone as was the tone of the entire Government in those first few days. It was bound to have the worst possible effect upon members of the Seamen's Union. If Members talk with the seamen, as I have done, after they have come off their ships, one would realise after 20 minutes that for them it is a normal industrial dispute between them and their employers., and that there was no idea of taking part in a conspiracy to attack the prices and incomes policy of the Government. This was completely foreign to their minds. No one who has talked to them will suggest such a thing, or say that this is a strike against the State and the community.
If the doctrine that, because of the prices and incomes policy, any major ndustr al dispute is ipso facto a strike against the State and the community is encouraged it will have the most destructive consequences for our industrial relations. There is a very serious confusion here. In the past it has always been held that any long-drawn-out industrial dispute involving the public utilities or more than one industry would at some point pat the country in a position where the community would be gravely affected. This has nothing to do with the new interpretation given by the Prime Minister to this problem. The old idea and definition of what may become a very grave matter affecting the community is something quite different from saying that any major industrial dispute, because it attacks the prices and incomes policy by implication is ipso facto immediately a strike against the State and the community. This is a wrong and dangerous doctrine.
I would call in aid any Member of this House who has held the office of Minister of Labour. I am confident that, no matter to which side of the House they belong, they would have to agree with me that neither they, nor the present Minister of Labour, could have done their job properly if they were burdened

with the doctrine that as soon as any major industrial dispute broke out it had to be regarded as an attack on the State and the community.
It is for this reason as well as many other reasons that this is a debate of the greatest and most serious consequences for our industrial relations in general and not only as it affects this dispute. By making it appear as if the seamen were to be made an example of, and by thinking that by making a sharp counter-attack immediately against the claim of the National Union of Seamen the incomes and prices policy would be defended successfully, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet have made a most serious miscalculation. My right hon. Friend is being urged to adopt just this attitude. In its first leading article last Friday, the Economist urged the Prime Minister not only to adopt this attitude to the claim of the National Union of Seamen but to make a counter attack. This is advice which he should reject.
I am, therefore, much concerned that we should draw from this dispute conclusions which should guide us in future in our industrial relations. This dispute was the worst kind of dispute to make an example of, even if the policy of making an example of any dispute made sense. The sympathy which has developed all over the country for the case of the National Union of Seamen is proof that my belief is widely shared.
Some of the contributions of hon. Members opposite this afternoon have shown that they do not have much knowledge of the work of the trade union movement. They talk glibly about 13 per cent. and 17 per cent, without knowing what they are talking about. If they were to examine the facts, they would realise why there is such widespread sympathy for the claim of the National Union of Seamen. The members of the National Union of Seamen are providing an essential service and they are grossly underpaid, not to speak of the difficult conditions in which they have to do their work. The more knowledge spreads among the people in this country and in the House, the more sympathy for the seamen will increase.
When we realise that as a result of the 13 per cent. increase a seaman's total


wage per week is £14, we must ask ourselves how low their wages must have been before. The union's case falls directly within the confines of the point made again and again by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, that the incomes and prices policy, if it is to be fair, does not mean that people whose wages have fallen behind will not have them increased even beyond the norm. This is an excellent example to which to apply this criterion so often repeated, and with good reason, by the First Secretary of State.
What is the position when one makes a detailed study of conditions in the industry and considers the way in which the 1964 Agreement has been misused and abused by so many employers in the industry? On many ships there used to be no real work done on Saturdays after lunch. Merely because the agreement on the 56-hour week had been concluded, many companies firmly insisted that work must be found for everybody after 12 o'clock. We now begin to get a glimpse of what is in the minds of the seamen when they approve the strike policy of their union. It is misguided of hon. Members opposite to try to enter into the details of this case without real knowledge of it, and they certainly cannot do it on the memorandum sent to all of us by the Shipping Federation.
When the Government carry their proposals this evening, and when the work of the Court of Inquiry begins, this will be a testing time for the Government's attitude to this dispute and the best possible time for preparing for a successful conclusion of the dispute. I urge them to make certain that because of the very delicate line which has been drawn by agreement which would make unnecessary the use of any of the powers for any of the military forces, they should be very careful. I am convinced that in the light of the agreement between the seamen and dockers most probably none of these powers will have to be used.
Secondly, the Government must continue to accept their responsibility while the Court of Inquiry is sitting and put pressure on the employers to improve the offer to the National Union of Seamen because that is the best basis for a speedy settlement of this dispute.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: We are told that we are debating Regulations introduced at a time of great national emergency. Yet, at 6 o'clock, one of my hon. Friends, while he was speaking with the full attention of the House, was interrupted and bellowed at by someone who is not a Member of this House, but who was doing his duty, and for 12½ minutes the debate ceased. We went into limbo and suspended animation while the Royal Assent was given to certain Bills. I accept that this was a necessary thing to do, but it seems strange, and possibly only the British could do it at a time when we are discussing emergency powers in a state of national emergency. In this Parliament at least some attention should be given to this anachronism.
The debate should be about emergency powers. You, Sir, and your predecessor in the Chair have allowed discussion on the need for the emergency powers, and this leads us to the reasons for the dispute. I should like to ask for information on one point. I ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to note a situation which we are told arose a week or more ago when representatives of the National Union of Seamen went to the Ministry and Downing Street. They were asked to accept a pay offer which would be linked with the offer of a Court of Inquiry or a Royal Commission.
I have been told that during the negotiations between the employers and the National Union of Seamen's negotiators, four offers were made by the employers. Three of them were discussed and rejected. I am told that the fourth was discussed, amended and accepted by the negotiators and was taken back to their executive for acceptance or rejection. In the event, it was rejected.
I am told that the offer linked with the Court of Inquiry from the Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister was not the last offer which had been agreed temporarily between negotiators across a table, but an offer which was less attractive to the National Union of Seamen than the previous offer. That is one point which he could clear up, because it is causing some difficulty. If it is suggested that the dispute is only about the 40-hour week, whoever is suggesting that knows


very little about the past history of disputes The 40-hour week is an issue, of course. In my time, I have been on the Australian run, and we always used to say—

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): Perhaps I might intervene to explain the point, which I know has given rise to some doubt, as to why the 3 per per cent. offer was allied to an offer of a court of inquiry. It was because the first offer of 19th March of 3 per cent. really left things as they were, basically. At that stage, the owners' offer, which was also discussed, had strings attached to it that would have complicated future negotiations. That is why I suggested to the seamen that if they took the first offer, which was an improvement on the basic rate, that would leave every other complication over to be dealt with by the Court of Inquiry, which would perhaps be better for negotiations in the end.

Mr. Ogden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
As I was saying, it is not only the 40-hour week, but a very wide range of grievances. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were talking about 13 and 17 per cent., I was trying to intervene to say that it is not a question of the percentage increase, but the total wage at the end of the week. After all, £10 per cent. of 10 and 10 per cent. of £10,000 are two very different things. It is the total increase in hard cash and how much it will buy that is important.
One thing that caused me concern about the last pay settlement and the one being negotiated now is that, in the one which was negotiated 12 months ago, the proportion of basic pay was gradually increasing. It is on the basic pay that allocations home are made. It is on the basic pay that a man's creditworthiness is reckoned at home. It is on the basic pay that he can possibly get a mortgage.
Some of the better companies, particularly in the case of their long-term seamen, are trying to get them on to staff status, with fringe benefits and pensions. There is doubt in my mind about the wisdom of accepting an offer which will affect the basic pay. It is the total and the basic higher up which are important. Equally, I think that the extension of staff status could well be taken into con-

sideration by the employers' association as a whole and the union as a whole.
Mention has been made by many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen about the support for the seamen from the general public. It has been greater than I had personally expected, and it would have been even greater if the Seamen's Union had hired that person who is not liked very much by the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), or perhaps it was my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—a public relations officer.

Mr. Hogg: We both share that view. Neither of us likes them.

Mr. Ogden: Neither my hon. Friend nor the right hon. Gentleman needs them very much. They are their own public relations officers.
The seamen have a good case, but only this week, after the dispute had been going on for three or four weeks, have the seamen taken the opportunity of writings to hon. Members to tell us about it. In my constituency, they were on to us right away, but it would have been better if they had hired the services of a public relations officer to give everyone an idea of what was going on.
Public support has been growing, and it is probably due to the fact that so far there has been little public distress or inconvenience. No one has had to stop travelling on trains, no one has gone short of food, and there have been none of the inconveniences generally associated with a transport strike.
Perhaps one of the reasons for introducing the Regulations is that difficulties at home are expected, with employers going to their factory workers and telling them that, if the dispute is not settled within a week or ten days, they will be on short time. If a worker goes home with that sort of news, it is a testing time for public opinion and for the seamen's union itself. That is something which we have not yet faced. Word is going out already through factories on Merseyside to the effect that, if the dispute is not settled fairly shortly, short-time working will come to Merseyside and spread to other regions.
It has been said of the union that it had to have a strike. It did not help earlier when hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to suggest who should be on the


executive of the union and who should not. Having shown their ability, their determination and that they can bring the men out and get their support, realising the position that total action can lead to, it is time that the effect of it was borne in mind, not only by the Seamen's Union but by the employers.
Equally,there are employers on Merseyside who have tried to play this as quietly as possible and keep the heat off. It has been said that they have played it according to the Queensberry Rules, and now we have the Court of Inquiry.
I hope that the basis of negotiations will be for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to say, "Come back, not to separate meetings in different rooms of the same building, but come back and let me talk to both of you at the same time round a table." There are many suspicious people in the world who would say that my right hon. Friend is saying one thing to one side and another thing to the other side. I do not for one moment accuse him of doing that, but it would strengthen the hands of the union and the employers with their own people to be able to say that they had talked things over with the Minister together. Such a meeting with the Minister would be extremely useful.
Mention has been made of the suspicion in some areas that the Government regard the seamen as a test case for their incomes policy and that they went out of their way deliberately to seek this dispute. That is an understandable suspicion when one thinks of some members of our Government who can be a little Machiavellian at times. With all respect to their political ability, I would say that if they were seeking a test case to challenge, they would not have sought a dispute where the withdrawal of labour will paralyse industrial and commercial life so rapidly. They would not have challenged a strong union. Surely they would have picked on a weak one.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that these were the widest Regulations of which he had knowledge since the 1926 General Strike. He seemed to be suggesting that he would have preferred phase I and phase II Regulations, with limited ones for the first phase and then, if the emergency went on for another four weeks, more severe

Regulations. I wonder whether this would have been wise, whether it is not better to let everyone know the Regulations in the first place so that they know what is in them, and we know what is in them, before any action is taken. This was the Government's dilemma. They could have introduced them, acted on them, and then debated them, but acting like good boy scouts, they allowed us to debate them so that all points of view could be made known before any action was taken on the waterfront or anywhere else. This was the Government's dilemma, and this is the course which they have chosen.
On Monday it was said that the port in my area was becoming congested. Some help will come in because there is agreement by two unions. This will lessen the congestion, but eventually the port will close. Factories in the area are talking about short-time working, and prices are going up. Therefore, although I do not think that anyone in the House welcomes the idea of having emergency Regulations under which the rule of law is suspended and handed over to the Front Bench, I for one accept them because of the knowledge that I have of my right hon. Friends, but I ask that they be used as little as possible, and, above all, as carefully as possible.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dickens: I welcome the setting up of this Court of Inquiry into this very serious dispute. I am pleased to learn that the Court of Inquiry includes Mr. Hugh Clegg who, as hon. Members are aware, is a member of the Prices and Incomes Board. He is a man of considerable experience in industrial relations, and a man who, I am sure, will add tremendous drive and prestige to the inquiry.
I am happy, too, that the Court of Inquiry will be able to carry out a wide-ranging and comprehensive review of the situation during the next few weeks, and that its recommendations will include suggestions on wages and hours of work.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is present in the Chamber. I listened carefully to him explaining his reasons for asking the N.U.S. to accept the first offer made by the shipowners as a basis for setting up the Court of Inquiry. This was a fortnight or so ago. In the light of


his statement this afternoon that was understandable, but, having established the Court of Inquiry, what is there to prevent the N.U.S. and the shipowners themselves arranging a settlement of the dispute on the basis of, for example, the shipowners' final offer which, it will be recalled, Mr. Hogarth and the negotiating committee of the N.U.S. initially accepted? It seems that the Government have set up a Court of Inquiry without getting any sort of undertaking from either the N.U.S. or the shipowners on this aspect of the matter.
It is obvious that any form of settlement will have to be a variation on the shipowners' last offer.

Mr. Gunter: Does not my hon. Friend understand that the N.U.S. has absolutely rejected the first stage of the shipowners' offer?

Mr. Dickens: I do, indeed, understand that the union has rejected the shipowners' first offer, and I also understand that it has rejected the final one. What I am saying is that any settlement of the dispute will have to be a variation of the shipowners' final offer, and it is this point which Mr. George Woodcock, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., made in a recent statement on the dispute when he put forward the proposition that one way out of the difficulty might be to get a minimum reduction of hours from 56 to 48 without any accompanying strings. This might be one way in which the dispute is settled.

Mr. Gunter: But that was rejected.

Mr. Dickens: I think that the basis for a settlement here must be around a variation of the final offer made by the shipowners. I think that this offer is well within the general terms of the Government prices and incomes policy, which allows for considerable variations above the 3½ per cent. norm for certain lowly paid wage earners. It is the sort of policy which could properly be applied in this dispute.
The men involved in this dispute are lowly paid. They have a right to expect the 3½ per cent. norm not to be rigidly applied to them. In their case I would expect the settlement to be significantly higher, and therefore I think that the offer made by the shipowners of

5 per cent. in the first year, 4 per cent. in the second year, and 4 per cent. in the third year in terms of cost is a reasonable basis for a settlement of the dispute.
I think, too, that the Court of Inquiry having been set up and given these wide-ranging and comprehensive terms of reference, the N.U.S. would be well advised to look at the effects of the strike on the economy as a whole, and it is this aspect with which I am particularly concerned.
What worries most of my hon. Friends and me is the fact that with each day that passes the strike is having a most damaging effect on the country's economy. After the strike has been concluded in one way or the other, we shall be confronted with a situation in which the prospects for social advance have taken a setback. It is bound to mean, in the long term—taking this year overall—not only that our economy has suffered a setback but that the prospects for improvements in education, pensions, housing and social welfare generally have deteriorated. That is the aspect of the problem to which I want the National Union of Seamen to pay attention.
There is much in the point made by some of my hon. Friends that the strike is in the nature of an exercise in industrial psychology. We are now paying for a decade or more of complaisant, as distinct from complacent, trade union leadership in this matter, and today the union feels that it has to prove its maturity or man-hood in fighting for what it believes to be a reasonable settlement of the seamen's claim. I can understand that in the initial days of the dispute this was a tenable proposition, but after virtually a fortnight, I suggest that this explanation is wearing a little thin.
On such an occasion as this it is perhaps as well to make one or two passing references to certain basic assumptions which must lie behind any successful prices and incomes policy which may be introduced or carried into effect by a Labour Government. First, such a policy must be comprehensive, and must include incomes from all sources. At present it does not do so. So far as I know, there is no provision for including unearned income within the purview of the Prices and Incomes Board. I hope that this will soon be remedied.
Secondly, a prices and incomes policy under a Labour Government must contain a major element of social justice. The 3½ per cent. norm should not be rigidly applied to every group of industrial workers who happen to be bargaining for a wage or salary settlement. Clearly, some people must do with less than 3½ per cent. and some with rather more.
Thirdly, we expect from a Labour Government a prices and incomes policy which includes an element of income redistribution. We must start on the assumption that with unequal incomes among various sections of society the application of a 3½ per cent. norm rigidly over the whole range of employment makes nonsense of such a policy from Socialist point of view. So, although I support the prices and incomes policy, and the Government's endeavours to frame such a policy, I want it to be made more comprehensive and to contain a large element of social justice as well as an element of income redistribution.
I have suggested ways in which the strike may be settled. In passing, and in the Minister's hearing, I refer to the fact that Mr. Hogarth himself adhered to the view that the owners' last offer "was as just and reasonable as could be expected in all the circumstances". The owners, who have offered roughly what the union wanted, have taken the opportunity of phasing it over three years. Having read the statement made by Mr. Hogarth at the conference of the National Union of Seamen called to consider the rejection of the shipowners' offer by the N.U.S. Executive, I wonder, in the light of the fact that we have set up a Court of Inquiry with very comprehensive terms of reference, why this dispute should continue.
It has been suggested that the Government have chosen this dispute as a test case for the success or failure of the prices and incomes policy. Certain remarks along these lines have been made by some of my hon. Friends today. I think that this is completely untrue. Even if it were true, the Government would be making a fundamental error in all the circumstances to take on a group of industrial workers such as the seamen as a test case.
The National Union of Seamen and seamen in general are in the unique position to damage the economy while they themselves avoid many of the material effects arising as a consequence of the dispute. We all know that many seamen can find alternative employment readily on land, especially with the holiday season getting under way—employment in hotels, holiday camps and elsewhere. If the 65,000 men, the total number of members of the N.U.S., were on strike, they could be swallowed up by the economy of the country quite rapidly without their having to suffer any undue material disadvantages from the strike. At the same time the ports of this country are tied up and the stoppage is having a very serious and damaging effect on the national economy.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is well aware, with each ship which comes into port there is a new injection of enthusiasm given to the men already on strike, because with each ship which comes into port there is a new batch of men to join the dispute in successive days, men who are not at all affected by the initial ten days of the dispute which we have already undergone. The dispute could be a very long-lived one. The men, because of their peculiar position, can avoid the worst materal effects to themeslves and, in addition, they are adding to the dispute day by day this additional dose of initial enthusiasm from men who are just coming off ship. So I do not think it true that the Government have chosen this as a test case for the prices and incomes policy.
We are now in a position in which the Labour Government have taken the step this afternoon of announcing that they intend to set up a Court of Inquiry composed of men of very high calibre, men on whom we can depend to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. I am certain that this Court of Inquiry will result in findings which will recommend a greatly improved quality of life for seafaring men in this country for many years to come. I am also certain that there is still considerable room for manœuvre and negotiation between the shipowners and the men. If we can now return to a variant of the shipowners' final offer, perhaps in terms of hours, perhaps making the offer on hours over two years and not three, this might well provide a


basis for a settlement which the men can adopt reasonably and which the union can successfully put across to the rank and file of the membership.
I think that we are entitled to expect from the National Union of Seamen that, having shown their capacity to engage in a major industrial dispute, having succeeded in getting a Court of Inquiry to examine a wide range of problems affecting the industry, they accept that the onus is now upon them to consider very seriously whether, having made their point, they should now return to work. They can expect, as they have the right to expect—and as they will find to be the case—that a Labour Government and the back-bench Members on this side of the House will see that they get social justice not only as a consequence of the evidence of the Court of Inquiry but in the months and years ahead.
I therefore conclude by saying that I did not support the strike when it began. I listened carefully to Mr. Hogarth when he came to the Palace of Westminster yestercay to discuss the matter, and I was very unconvinced by his continued reiteration of the National Union of Seamen's case for remaining on strike. I ask them now in all the circumstances, taking cognisance of today's development, to reconsider their decision, and I invite them to return to work.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I have every intention of being brief. I do not want to go over the ground which was covered by so many of my hon. Friends. I wish to make one or two simple points and leave it at that.
My first is that throughout most of this debate, which is so involved with the question of individual liberties and freedoms, the benches opposite have been empty. Four hon. Members, three of whom were on duty, has been the general number present, and the entire Liberal bench has been empty. It would be as well to compare the fight for individual liberties put up by Members on the other side of the House throughout the day—and by that I mean none—with the fight in a few weeks' time, when the Finance Bill comes before the House when they will be present to defend their financial interests.
There is a moral to this. if the Government come forward with certain proposals and we receive such unanimous and confident support from the other side that hon. Members opposite do not even need to turn up to keep an eye on us, it is time we looked at our own legislation with care and with some suspicion. Quite obviously, if a provision were written into the Finance Bill to attack directly the shipowners' profits, we should see that particular lobby in action during the long darkness of the night. Therefore, it would appear that that group, at any rate, do not see the measure as being imposed against them.
If that is the case—and I think that it follows quite logically—we must be excused if many of us on this side of the House tend to say either that these Regulations are being imposed one-sidedly against the N.U.S. in this situation, or—and perhaps this is equally serious, because ideas can become facts—that the seamen will see it in this way. I therefore feel that we cannot look upon the Measure as being impartial. It has its effect upon the dispute which we are facing—we must remember that it is not a strike but a dispute—and I am afraid that it will have a bad effect, because no hon. Member should underestimate the potentials and strengths of the National Union of Seamen.
As other hon. Members have said, with each ship that comes in there is a fresh accession of strength for the union. Indeed, since the seamen are not on strike, as they are not breaking any contract, there is no reason why they should not be taking up more lucrative employment in other areas. This could go on for a very long time.
My second point is to stress that the freedoms of the individual are involved. After a week or so of this dispute we are bringing in measures such as Regulation 26:
No person shall trespass on, or on premises in the vicinity of, any premises used or appropriated for the purposes of essential services.…
Furthermore, if a person is so found "in the vicinity of" and any proceedings are:
…taken against a person by virtue of this paragraph.… the prosecution may thereupon adduce such evidence of the character of that person.… as tends to show that he was so present for a purpose prejudicial to the public safety ".


When I consider what evidence may be adduced upon my own character and consider some of my own record—and of many hon. Members on these benches who have been involved in industrial argument and dispute of one kind or another—I shall be terrified to go within many hundreds of yards of Glasgow Docks for several weeks to come. I should not have a leg to stand on if this Regulation were brought before me. That is the kind of measure which is now before us. Therefore, even if the Government are convinced that this is necessary, they must assure us tonight that this kind of vague, abstract and, indeed, dangerous attack on the liberty of the subject will be removed.
We have had discussion about whether the strike is due to an involvement with the Government rather than with the shipowners. I remember reading the seamen's poster
Seamen v. shipowners, not Seamen v. Parliament".
There has been a great tendency on the part of the Government through their actions, of which the Regulations are one, to turn the strike or dispute into a dispute between the seamen and the Government. This is an error. We do not intend to do that, but there is a tendency for it to happen. How are we to overcome that? Regulation 18 is one way round it. It states that there will be regulation of food prices, so that we are beginning to implement for the first time, not only an incomes policy, but a prices and incomes policy. We have had little of this over the past year and a half but we have had plenty of strikes and disputes about keeping wages down. We have not had much powerful action to reduce the cost of foodstuffs, and it is time that we did this.
If the Government feel it necessary to introduce this measure—which, I fear, will not help them in this situation but will only exacerbate it—I direct their attention to Regulation 22. This is an interesting provision. If the Government feel it necessary to take these emergency powers, here is a way out for them.
The shipowners' lobby has been absent today. That lobby should have had a more careful look at the emergency powers, because Regulation 22 states that a competent authority.
may requisition any chattel in Great Britain (including any vessel or aircraft or anything on board a vessel or aircraft)… and may hold, or sell or otherwise dispose of, the chattel as if the competent authority were the owner thereof and as if the chattel were free from any mortgage, pledge, lien or other similar obligation.
This means that we can requisition the merchant shipping if we wish. We have nationalised the Royal Navy, and I see no reason why we should not nationalise the Merchant Navy. Indeed, the Royal Navy is our oldest nationalised institution, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is fond of telling up. Here, therefore, is possibly a way out for the Government in their dilemma.
I make this suggestion seriously, and I make it to the seamen. The seamen say that this is not a strike against the nation or the Government but is against the shipowners, and they are correct. Instead of loading any essential supplies on frigates and destroyers, why not load them on to the nearest merchant ship, as we are entitled to do under the Regulations? We should then say to the seamen, "It is necessary to run this load up to the Isle of Lewis. We can make sure that the profits do not go to the shipowners but come to the nation, and the nation will divide the profits between ourselves and the seamen".
Hon. Members opposite may laugh because I speak of profits not going to the shipowners. To hon. Members opposite, that is unthinkable. We have not heard so much from them today about the freedom of the individual being taken away but one word from me about the freedom to make profit being taken away is so abnormal that it is thought to be funny. If we could take over one section of shipping, the Royal Navy, why cannot we take over this section and say to the seamen, "You run these ships for us and we will collect the freight charges and, during the period of the dispute, share the profits, half or thereabouts to you and half to the Government"?
The captains, officers and men are there, and if we took this action the seamen would benefit and I am sure that the shipowners would rapidly proceed to the negotiating table. I offer this suggestion seriously to the Government and I trust that it will be considered in


the same vein. After all, the Government have the means in their hand to take this action and I am sure that the seamen would co-operate. It would demonstrate that this is a dispute with the shipowners, and if the shipowners say, "This is taking over our property," that will not matter because for many years they have taken over the lives of the seamen whose claims they say they cannot at present meet.
If the shipowners say that the amount of pay which the seamen would have been getting in the interim period, if my suggestion is accepted, cannot continue to be paid to them, we should point to the example of Sweden, America and almost every other country and reply, "If you cannot make your organisations work efficiently enough to pay reasonable wages, as other countries are able to do, and make a profit, it is about time that you went, anyway".
The Labour movement has frequently referred to the need to clear away the dead wood in board rooms and to make industry efficient. If this industty cannot pay decent wages something must be done about it. The solution is easy. The ships and the men are there. The men would be willing to co-operate, in the knowledge that they would share the freight rates with the Government and would get higher wages than they are at present. The only people who will not co-operate are the shipowners. The main task is to begin to bring them into line with the human conditions which exist in other countries.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I wish to make it clear, in the few minutes of the debate remaining to me, that of all the issues which are likely to be raised in the lifetime of this Parliament, I do not believe that any could engage more of my sympathy and compassion than the one we are discussing today.
I am an ex-merchant seaman. I served for 13 years, in peace and war, in the British merchant service and I am only too well aware why the strike which is now taking place, this withdrawal of labour, can be justified as no other industrial strike could be since the war. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was announcing the imposition

of these Regulations he made this important statement:
I believe that the accumulated difficulties. grievances, frustrations—and we must say this plainly—the failures of the union in past years to deal with these frustrations…"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT 23rd May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 38.]
has brought about the present position. No one could agree more than me with the Prime Minister.
For many years after the war the position was that the shipowners had the National Union of Seamen in their pockets. For many years members of the union attempted, by all means at their disposal, to elect an executive which would carry out its wishes. Contrary to what is stated in the circular which was received by most hon. Members this afternoon, the majority of British seafarers are not young men. Yesterday afternoon I met a deputation to the House and spoke to my former shipmates, men who took convoys to Russia with me during the war. These are married men with families and they are merely asking for a decent living.
The Prime Minister was quite correct in saying that the unions had failed to deal with the grievances of their members in past years, but if we interpret that literally we must come to the conclusion that in failing to act on behalf of its members over the past 10 or 15 years the union also failed to better the conditions of its members. This becomes quite obvious when we realise that today they are working a 56-hour week. When the employers cry that there was a rise last year of 13 per cent., and 17 per cent. is asked for now, we can see that for the past 15 years the employers have been getting away with absolute murder.
The numbers in the merchant service have been depleted from 90,000 to 65,000. The union takes pride in the fact that its members have contributed to productivity in this industry. Even without automation and the new technological developments which have been applied to merchant ships over the last 10 or 15 years, from personal experience I can tell the House that when I served in the engine room of a ship which sailed from the Royal Albert Docks in London three men were required in that engine room to carry out a watch. In 1946, only a year later, one man was expected to


do the job of three men. Here was cooperation from the union. There was no technological development which led to an increase of productivity there.
I state once again that the National Union of Seamen has only once had a national executive which it could hold in respect. It has been felt by seamen with whom I have sailed during the war and whom I spoke to yesterday afternoon that the threat of imposition of these Regulations is made directly at the National Union of Seamen. The Government, they feel, regard the union and its members as the weakest link in the chain. It must be remembered that the union can never at any time have all its members assembled in one place. Even now half its members are scattered in the various maritime ports of the world.
Great credit is due to the present executive of the union that the loyalty of its members is such that every member in Britain at the moment is unanimous in support. On television one night last week there was a story about sailing conditions in the "Queen Mary". In the "Queen Mary" seamen are still sleeping 10 or 15 to a cabin. If that happened ashore it would not be sanctioned by any medical officer of health. It is injurious to health for men to have to sleep in such close, overcrowded conditions. The members of the British merchant service have taken up this stand after many years of frustration.
It ill becomes this Government to take a stand in defence of the employers against the union. As a member of the National Union of Seamen I and every individual member whom I have known for years pay a political levy to the Labour Party. All the years I was at sea every man I met believed in the principles for which the Labour Party was fighting. They must now feel absolutely sickened at the spectacle presented, which they could not have expected, in the attitude adopted by the Government. They could not have expected any other attitude to be adopted if it were a Tory Government. Unless a clear distinction is drawn by which the Labour Government will act and abide by Socialist principles, it will lose the support of the people and they will know in what way to vote when the next election comes.

9.5 p.m.

Sir John Hobson: We have spent a long day debating a very important subject. A declaration by Her Majesty upon the advice of her Ministers of a state of emergency is of the greatest importance to the nation. The Regulations which are made under the statutory powers are likely to affect the working capacity, the livelihood and the way of life of the community as a whole.
Immediately before the debate the Minister of Labour made the very important announcement that he had referred, as I understand it for advice only, a number of questions connected with the strike to a Court of Inquiry. He has not referred the industrial dispute as such for settlement by the Court of Inquiry. As I understand it, he has referred for advice only certain questions connected with the dispute to the inquiry.
A number of questions have been raised in the course of the debate as to whether at that time the Minister of Labour did or did not assent to the fact that the appointment of the Court of Inquiry will mean that the industrial dispute will not hereafter at any time be subject to review by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We had the pleasure of the presence of the Minister half an hour ago. I had hoped to have had the opportunity of inviting him to clear up this point, which seems to be in doubt; but I have not the slightest doubt that he will have communicated with the Attorney-General, who answers on behalf of the whole Government. We therefore await the answer of the Attorney-General as to the attitude of the Government on the Court of Inquiry and whether this industrial dispute is or is not hereafter to be the subject of review by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
Many of the speeches today have been concerned with the merits on either side of this industrial dispute. I do not think those questions are strictly relevant to the topic we are debating. As I understand the matter, the only topics which we are entitled to debate today are, first, whether the Government were correct in advising Her Majesty that a state of emergency both existed and ought to be proclaimed under the 1920 Act; and, secondly, whether, if that decision was


correctly taken, the Regulations which have been laid should be approved by the House.
I support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said at the very beginning of the debate. We as an Opposition do not desire to criticise the advice which the Government gave to Her Majesty to proclaim a state of emergency at the beginning of this week. Although we have some anxieties about the Regulations, we do not intend at this stage to divide against them or to endeavour to amend them.
We agree that the consequences of the eamen's strike fully justify the declaration which has been made of a state of emergency, and we think that the Government were right before the Whitsun Recess to take powers to deal with a situation which could very easily deteriorate quickly. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) said, with each day a more damaging effect can occur on the economy and it is true, as has been said in the debate, that the slow strangulation of the necessary supplies for the community as a whole can occur during the course of the Recess. It was, therefore, very much better, in our view, that the Government should take the powers that would be necessary to deal with this situation.
Of course, this is not a question of whether the Government ought or ought not to enter into the industrial dispute on one side or the other. As I understand the matter, these powers are not intended and ought not to be used for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear on either side to settle this industrial dispute. The sole purpose of these powers is to secure the necessary interest of the community and of the nation as a whole. It is only in case the situation deteriorates to such an extent that the public are being prejudiced that the Government are justified in taking such. powers. We consider that they were right to take them at this stage, and we think it obvious to all that, unless the strike is settled soon, these powers may be needed very quickly.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) asked the Attorney-General about the use of naval forces, and I should be grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view on whether the

situation is this. The Regulations and the declaration of emergency have nothing whatever to do with the employment of military or naval forces and that the Government could at any stage, without a Proclamation and without these Regulations, have employed either naval or military forces for any purpose provided that it was essential in the national interest. I hope that the Attorney-General will make clear that the debate today and these Regulations have nothing whatever to do with the use of military forces, which could be used whether the Regulations had been made or not.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that we know very little about these Regulations, about their purpose or about the intentions which the Government have in laying them. The Home Secretary played this matter very close to his chest. He said almost nothing at all about the details of the Regulations and less than nothing about how he intended or foresaw that they might be needed in future.
While not opposing the Regulations, I agree with the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) that the powers which the Government are now taking go very much wider than those which were taken in either 1949 or 1955. They go almost as wide as the powers taken at the time of the General Strike in 1926.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was wrong when he said that those Regulations, which were prayed against by the Labour Party in 1926. are not included in these Regulations. There are many Regulations contained in what the Government have now tabled which were contained in the 1926 Regulations which were prayed against at that time.
As very little has been said about the nature and extent of the Regulations, I hope that the House will forgive me if I briefly point out their very wide impact. Apparently, the Government took what had been done in 1955, leaving out only one Regulation, that is, the power of the Home Secretary to authorise the use of police in other areas, because he had that power under the Police Act, 1964. The 1955 Regulations gave powers of arrest without warrant. They provided for


relaxation of many controls on road transport which had been imposed for the public safety and advantage. They relaxed the obligations on many public authorities to provide public services, notably, the railways, the Post Office and the electricity and gas authorities. The 1955 powers provided also for the requisitioning of any chattel in Great Britain.
That was all that was thought necessary for dealing with the railway strike. We now have a shipping strike. What the Government have done is to take those powers in tow and then to add a very large number of other powers. One presumes that all Departments had a look at them and added anything that they thought of, and the Government approved that such widespread powers should be in their hands.
Regulation 1 enables the Government to control and direct the use of the ports and, as has been pointed out, to direct people on how they shall work in the ports. Regulation 2 does away with the Dock Labour Scheme and allows the employment of workers in the docks in disregard of the Dock Labour Scheme. Regulation 7 allows the use of motor vehicles on the roads without any test certificate even though they may be as old as anything and as unfit for use as maybe. Regulation 8 enables the Minister of Transport to authorise the driving of heavy lorries and heavy locomotives by persons not holding a proper licence so to do.
Regulation 12(1,b) allows the Postmaster-General for the first time to refuse to transmit postal packets sent by or addressed to any person or class of person. This is a new power never included before. Regulation 14 gives power for the Minister to authorise the taking of water or the ignoring of restrictions on the taking of water simply on the say-so of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Regulation 17 allows powers to direct and control the distribution of all fuels, liquid or solid, and power to control the supply and to direct the supply of both solid and liquid fuels. Regulation 18 contains the power, already discussed, to regulate maximum food prices. It is, perhaps, worth observing that, in 1955, that power was coupled with the power

to requisition stocks of food. The Government have not taken that power this time. Nor have they taken power of enforcement, inspection and entry to see that the regulations on maximum prices are being observed. No such necessary powers of enforcement are being taken.
Regulation 20 contains power to control carriers of goods by road, to direct what they shall carry, how they shall conduct their business and what they shall do in the day-to-day use of their lorries. Regulation 21 contains the power to control and direct home trade shipping, to direct what should be carried and where the boats shall sail. Regulation 23 contains power to take possession of any land in Great Britain. Regulation 24 extends the power of naval billeting.
These are the list of additional powers the Government have taken to deal with the strike and it will be seen that they are very wide—much greater than in 1949 or 1959. Indeed, they are equivalent, almost, to the powers taken in the General Strike. The Government have added to these emergency powers that they are placing in the hands of Ministers.
We are not opposing these Regulations. We think it necessary that the Government should be properly armed with very extensive powers. But the House should realise that they are putting into the hands of the Executive much of of the manpower in large sections of the community, much of the property and services of the community and large parts of many liberties of the people.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said in a striking phrase, the rule of law has been suspended and handed over to the Front Bench. That exactly describes what is being done. While we think that the Government are right in such a situation to arm themselves with such powers, the real question will come on the judgment as to how those powers are used.
It is not so much the committal of these powers to the Government at this stage but the way in which the Government ultimately use them as the situation develops that really matters, and the Government will be judged not on


whether they should or should not have had these powers, but on the courage, the judgment, the moderation and good sense with which they use them as the situation develops. Like many hon. Members opposite, we reserve the right to criticise hereafter abuses, misuses or misjudgments of these powers.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) seemed to think that we should have delicate mechanism whereby, whenever a fire occurred, the House would have power to discuss it. He seemed to think that once these powers are given to Ministers that is the end of the matter. But I remind him that Ministers are wholly responsible as to how these powers are used and will be answerable to the House hereafter for all they do with them. The hon. Member for Oldham, West was wrong in suggesting that it might make a difference if Ministers delegate their powers. Even if they do, they will still be responsible for how those powers are exercised by those to whom they delegate them. The real question will arise not perhaps today but hereafter when we see how and in what manner the Government exercise their powers in the very difficult situation facing them and the nation.
There is one matter of which I should like to remind the Attorney-General. It is the problem which arises under Regulation 1 and the proviso to Section 2(1) of the 1920 Act. To remind the House of that proviso, it says:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorise the making of any regulations.imposing any form of compulsory military service or industrial conscription …
It is quite obvious from the reaction of the Attorney-General that he at any rate has not considered the Regulations in relation to that Section, because he appeared to be wholly unaware that that proviso was contained in the Act. We can therefore rely on the fact that the Regulations were made without the point having been considered, and in the circumstances I therefore turn to consider Regulation 1(1).
It enables the Minister of Transport give such directions
as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing that the most advantageous use is made in the public interest of the facilities provided at the port "—

and in particular such directions may
make provision for"—
among other things—
the loading and unloading of ships …
The vital question which the hon. Member for Walton put was, "Who is intended by 'any person'?". Of course it is not who is intended by the Government, or who is intended by the Home Secretary, or who is intended by what the Attorney-General says, but who is intended by the wording of the Regulation as laid. That is the point. I should have thought that there could be no doubt that it gives the Minister of Transport power to give a direction to any person if it appears to the Minister necessary to do anything in respect of the loading or unloading of ships.
I would have supposed that there could be no doubt that a Regulation giving a power, for instance, to the Minister of Defence to give directions to any persons for securing the full manning of all Royal Navy vessels, was a Regulation imposing a form of compulsory military service, and I am unable to understand, and await with interest the Attorney-General's explanation, how it could be said that this Regulation does not impose a form of industrial conscription. Of course, if it does it is ultra vires.
I suppose that it does not very much matter what view I express, or what view the Attorney-General expresses. We should be expressing opinions only and the crunch would come if anybody should take the point to the courts. But it is a matter of some importance and no doubt among the considerations of whether the point should be taken to the courts would be the view expressed by the Attorney-General upon it. As I have said, we await with interest what his explanation may be, but I am bound to say that as at present advised I would have formed the opinion that this was a form of industrial conscription and that the Regulation was probably ultra vires.
There is a further point as to whether it does not give power to order a person who would be participating in the strike to take part in the loading or unloading of a ship, and to that extent it would also be against the second proviso of Section 2(1). As has been pointed out, the only answer which there can be to


that is Regulation 31(1) which sets out the statutory proviso that
a person shall not be guilty of an offence against any of these Regulations by reason only of his taking part in, or peacefully persuading any other person or persons to take part in, a strike.
I need not remind hon. Members of the word "only" in the litigation about Rookes and Barnard. I see that the Minister of Labour is only too conscious of the point that if one is charged with one offence, the fact that there is a proviso of this sort does not protect anybody who is accused and prosecuted for failing to obey a direction given by the Minister of Labour under and in accordance with Regulation 1 as laid in the House.
My only other comments are concerned with the termination of these powers. I remind the Government that in 1955 the then Home Secretary, Major Lloyd George as he then was, gave an undertaking in the debate on the Regulations that the powers would be terminated within two or three days of the termination of the railway strike. I hope that the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, will be able to give a similar undertaking. Whatever the situation at the end of the strike, these Regulations ought to be revoked, because they should not be used for any other purpose than dealing with the emergency created as a result of the strike coming into being. If there are other difficulties, and the Government need additional powers, then they ought to seek different and separate powers under a different procedure to deal with that other situation.
In my view, it would be quite wrong for a Government to keep these Regulations in being once the seamen's industrial dispute is terminated, just because there may be difficulties that require attention. I hope that the Government will recognise the force of this and that the Attorney-General can give the undertaking which has been sought. There is no opposition from us to the recommendation which the Government have made to Her Majesty, as a result of the situation during this week, that Her Majesty should proclaim the emergency. There is no opposition from us to the grant of the powers as laid by the Regulations, wide indeed though they are and surprising per-

haps though they may be in their width and nature. We reserve the right hereafter to criticise the use that may be made of these powers and to hold Ministers responsible for the way in which they are exercised.

9.25 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): On behalf of the Government, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given on all sides of the House to the announcement—[Interruption.]—wait a moment, hon. Members will not quarrel with this one—about the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour this afternoon to set up the Court of Inquiry. [Laughter.] I am delighted that I have my hon. Friends with me so far. There is one matter which I propose to raise at once relating to the statement of my right hon. Friend in which he said that he had discussed with Lord Pearson, the distinguished Lord of Appeal, who is the Chairman of the court, the possibility of the court making an interim report dealing with the immediate issues in the dispute. He will be considering this possibility with his colleagues as a matter of urgency. That is a matter of importance.
There was one further matter in relation to the statement of my right hon. Friend, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) has referred, namely, the answer of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to the question put to him at the end of supplementary questions when my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) asked him, "Can you assure us that this inquiry will be quite free to reach its own conclusions about wages and conditions?" There followed a second part to that question—"When those conclusions are reached, they will not be subject to findings of the Prices and Incomes Board?" My right hon Friend gave the answer by an affirmative nod—yes—to those two questions. Ag is often the case when two questions are asked in one, that may not have been entirely enlightening and I think I ought to make the position quite clear to the House. I am instructed—I am advised by my hon. Friend—[Laughter.] that I may do so.
It is certainly free for the inquiry to reach its own conclusions about wages


and conditions, and its report will not be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. I should add in this connection that the House will recollect that one of the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry is:
to inquire into, … terms and conditions of service of seamen, taking into account the national interest, technological change and the need for an efficient and competitive shipping industry;
In this connection, perhaps I may be permitted to underline the words, "taking into account the national interest.
The main criticism of the Regulations and of the Proclamation of the state of emergency has been as to timing and the plenitude of power taken under the Regulations. On timing, may I repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The sole purpose of the Regulations is to maintain the essentials of life of the community at large. That is their purpose and only purpose. They are in no way directed against strikers or the National Union of Seamen, or the employers. They are intended solely and exclusively to protect the life of the community. They are not a means of bringing pressure to bear on either of the parties in the dispute. Indeed, in view of the announcement of the setting up of the Court of Inquiry, it would not be helpful for me at this stage to enter into a discussion of the issues which the court will be considering in relation to the dispute.
As to the powers which the Government are taking by these Regulations, it is quite true that some of them may never be used at all. Indeed, the Government greatly hope that none of them will have to be used, or, at any rate, that only a few of them need to be used It is the Government's earnest hope that there will be an early settlement of the dispute. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that none of the powers which the Government are taking will be used unless it is absolutely necessary to use them.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that this strike clearly confronts our country with serious dangers and risks of serious disruption to the life of the community which could arise any day even if they have not arisen to any great extent yet. The Government—indeed any Government—have the clear duty to protect the

vital interests of the nation, and that is why the Government took the action which they did in regard to the Proclamation of the state of emergency and the powers which they are inviting the House to approve.
It is quite true that the occasion for the exercise of many of these powers is hypothetical. As I have said, that occasion may never arise. I doubt whether it would be helpful for me to accept the invitation given to me to suggest some hypothetical situations which may arise calling for the exercise of these powers. I have never thought it advantageous to paint the devil on the wall, and, as I have said, it is hoped that the contingency will not arise for the exercise of a particular power. Nevertheless, it is imperative in a state of emergency, when one knows not what crisis in transport, or whatever it may be, may arise, that the Government should be fully armed to protect the life of our community.
There has been some criticism of the Regulations because they include some new regulations and that they cover contingencies which were not previously dealt with. It is true that the Departments, in reviewing the needs of the Department, have added to what they deemed to be necessary. To describe any of those new features of the Regulations as introducing elements of severity has no foundation whatever. The additional powers that are taken to dispense with test certificates in respect of vehicles, to dispense with strict provisions about driving licences, excise licences, etc., the new provisions about the safeguarding of water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal, and the provisions about making vehicles available for use in emergency for dealing with home trade shipping, are merely part of the machinery for the protection of the community and contain no element of oppression of any kind to any citizen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham raised an interesting constitutional point in his speech and said that if the Regulations were continued, there would be no Parliamentary control over the exercise of the powers that were conferred.

Mr. Graham Page: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has left the point


about whether there are any unusual powers and how they are to be used.

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Graham Page: I take it that he is coming back to them.

The Attorney-General: Yes. I have not forgotten the inquisition of the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come to it in a moment. I should like first to deal with a preliminary matter, if I may.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham submitted that there would be no Parliamentary control over the exercise of the powers once they are given to the Government by Parliament. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington dealt with that point in the outstanding respect that, of course, Ministers will be answerable to the House for the use to which the powers are put. The House is very jealous in guarding against the abuse of powers by Ministers.
There is a somewhat unusual feature of the parent Act in that Section 2(4) of the 1920 Act provides for an unusual form of Parliamentary control. The Regulations may not only be amended or revoked by an Order in Council. They may also be amended or revoked by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. However, the main check and control will be the vigorous procedure of Parliamentary Questions, Adjournment debates and the manifold opportunities that, happily, the House has of calling Ministers to order if they have transgressed in any way in the exercise of their powers.
The hon. Member for Crosby, with his customary care about emergency regulations and similar statutory instruments, put the proposition to the House that these Regulations empower Ministers to legislate by Order over a wide field, and he found that rather unattractive. It would be, if it were true. The general pattern of the Regulations is that they also authorise executive directions and not legislative orders.
The only Regulations that provide for legislative orders are, first of all, Regulation No. 16, dealing with fuel control, which in effect repeats Orders that were provided for in the 1955 Regulations; and, secondly, Regulation No. 18, to which I shall turn in some detail in a moment. To them, perhaps, I ought to add Regulation No. 33(2) which enables

the Minister to make an order rather than issue directions in identical terms to a large number of persons.
Apart from those, the other Regulations provide for the making of executive directions.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely the Attorney-General is not suggesting that it is merely an administrative or Ministerial direction to set aside the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme?

The Attorney-General: I say that, and I shall come to it in a moment in dealing with Regulations 1 and 2 as to how they are to operate. But it is not setting aside the Dock Workers Scheme. It is making provision for the carrying out of certain operations, and in doing so enables the authorities concerned to do so, despite the fact that their actions may not be in compliance with the scheme. But perhaps I might come to that in a moment when I deal with the Regulations in the order to which they have been referred.

Sir J. Hobson: Surely this point is largely a matter of semantics. If one looks at some of the Regulations, one sees that if the Minister gave a general authority he would be legislating. Consider the Instruction and Use Regulations. The Minister of Transport could issue a general regulation that those Regulations should not apply, and that would be delegated legislation.

The Attorney-General: I think I am accurate in what I am saying, that the only Orders which involve legislation in any constitutional sense are Regulations 16 and 18. However, let me deal with more particular matters and depart from what is perhaps largely an exercise in semantics, but I do not think an unimportant one.
I was asked about the use of naval and military forces, and whether any regulations were necessary to empower them to take any action in a situation which the Government hope will not arise, and may not arise, but in respect of which powers are provided.
It is true, as has been said, that the Armed Forces of the Crown can be used for any purpose of national importance, regardless of the taking of powers under the 1920 Act. The Armed Forces may


be used under the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, which, as the House knows, made permanent provision for their use and for the arrangements which were made in the 1939 Regulations. But the Armed Forces might not be very successful if they could not make use, and were not allowed to make use, of civilian facilities such as cranes and docks. The power to requisition these facilities comes only from emergency Regulations, and in practice, and as a matter of administration, it is necessary for these Regulations to be passed so that if it becomes necessary to use the Armed Forces—and, as If have said, the Government hope that that situation may never arise—they can be used.
Coming to the particular Regulations about which I was asked, most of the attention has been concentrated on Regulation 1. I hasten to say that I have not overlooked the two provisos, but I think that I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and thought that unbeknown to me the reference to industrial conscription had crept into the Regulation. However, the matter was certainly not overlooked, and the position about Regulation 1 is, first, that there is nothing new about it. In 1949 the Emergency Regulations made on the occasion of the dock strike contained an almost precisely similar provision to Regulation 1. It referred to directions which could be given
to the port authority or any other person …
The House will see that the primary power conferred by Regulation No. 1 is to give directions to the port authority or any other person, and in that context the reference is to someone with a responsibility similar to that of a port authority. It is the granting of a power to the Minister to give directions to the port authority, to foresee that advantageous use is made of the facilities provided at the port. The power is particularised in subparagraphs (a) to (f). It is clear that the Regulation contemplates directions as to the operations to be carried out, and relates manifestly to directions to employers rather than employees.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with industrial conscription; nothing in these Regulations compels an employee to do

anything, and nothing in them introduces any element of industrial conscription. The House has already been reminded of the provisions of regulation No. 31(1), which would protect a man on strike if he refused to carry out an order in relation to any such duties.
Anxieties were expressed about Regulation No. 2. That Regulation does not enable the Minister of Transport to require employees or dockers to perform any particular task; there is no element of conscription or compulsion in it. It does not enable the Minister to require art employer to employ labour, but it provides that notwithstanding the Dock Labour Scheme any employer may employ on dock work workers who are allocated to him by the Minister and, secondly, any workers on work approved by the Minister. There again, there is no element of conscription of compulsion.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

The Attorney-General: I am sorry. I want to get on, because I have a number of other matters to deal with. The next Regulation about which questions were asked was Regulation No. 18, dealing with maximum food prices. That Regulation did not appear in the 1955 Code—although I understand that it was in the first draft—but similar powers were taken in 1926 and 1949 and there is therefore abundant precedent for taking them.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, this provision is a reserve power in case developments hereafter make it necessary to regulate food prices. It is manifestly a reserve power, and if everyone plays his part, and housewives not only avoid panic buying but also act as good watchdogs—and if food traders maintain their co-operation in keeping down prices—it may never be necessary to use this power. Nevertheless, the Government again think it right to have this power in hand. It is clear that schemes made under these emergency powers, which it is hoped will be needed by the Government only for a short time, cannot be either as comprehensive or as universally enforced as a food control scheme designed for permanent use in war-time, but the Government are nevertheless confident that within the present context of a strike situation, what they might have to introduce would be effective in holding down prices and at any rate


bringing to book the most flagrant offenders.
I do not think that the House will expect me, nor would it be in the national interest, to reveal in advance the scope and method of any orders which might have to be made. As I emphasise, the Government hope that the powers will not have to be used and that the nation can continue to rely on the co-operation and public spirit of those who are engaged in food supply.
I was asked about Regulation 22 dealing with the requisition of chattels. That is not a new power, but it can be exercised only for the essential purposes which are specified in Section 2(1) of the 1920 Act. There was an inquiry about the taking of possession of land. That is a power in the Ministry of Public Building and Works to requisition land and to use it, but again only for the purposes specified in the 1920 Act. This, too, is a reserve power which it is most unlikely will be used. No similar Regulation was included in the code in 1955, but in 1949 requisitioning powers were available in Defence Regulations, and the father of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone played his part in including these powers in 1926.

Mr. Hogg: I pointed that out.

The Attorney-General: And I noted with what pride the right hon. and learned Gentleman did so. I was asked about Regulation 26 dealing with trespassing and loitering. These powers were taken in 1949 and 1955. The Regulation applies only when a person trespasses on or near premises used for essential purposes or is otherwise on or near such premises for purposes prejudicial to the public safety. These powers were taken before.

Mr. Buchan: There is the question of evidence of character tending
to show that he was so present for a purpose prejudicial to public safety".

The Attorney-General: I am aware of that provision which has appeared in all these Regulations from 1920 on.

Mr. Hogg: Back to my father again!

The Attorney-General: I do not take any pride in that from this side of the House, but that again is a provision

which existed before and in the circumstances of the emergency it is not an unreasonable provision.
I was asked to give assurances to the House about the Government's intentions in regard to the termination of these powers. As soon as there is no longer an emergency the Government will advise Her Majesty to revoke the proclamation of the emergency, and when that is done the emergency Regulations will lapse. We have no desire to maintain the powers, just as after the 1939-45 war the Labour Government quickly terminated their powers under Regulation 18B—[Laughter.]—as soon as the opportunity arose. We take no pleasure in taking these powers, but we regard doing so as a vital necessity in the present situation. Accordingly, in my submission, not only was it timely for the Government to advise Her Majesty about the declaration of the state of emergency, but it was also timely to take the powers that we have taken.
We earnestly hope that wise counsels will now prevail between the two parties to this unhappy dispute, and the House will, I know, welcome the initiative that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has taken. We pray that that initiative will soon result in a conclusion to this unhappy situation, and that the extra powers will not have to be exercised by the Government, which is most anxious to return to normality but is, nevertheless, determined to maintain the interests of the community at large.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not given the assurances for which he was asked, not one of the five assurances for which I asked him. No matter about that, but the assurance which was asked for from our Front Bench, that these Regulations would be revoked immediately the crisis was over, has not been given.

The Attorney-General: I thought that I had given not only that assurance but also all five assurances for which the hon. Gentleman asked. He really must not expect me to repeat them five times even because he asks them. I have given that assurance. Of course, I cannot give an assurance that the Measure would be brought to an end in one day or two days,


but clearly it would be a very short time. An emergency situation might continue as a consequence of a strike for a short time after the settlement of a strike, so I must not be bound to an irresponsible undertaking in advance.
However, the Government clearly wish the emergency to end, and when it ends the powers which they have taken to deal with it will, of course, be ended. We do not enjoy the exercise of unnecessary powers. As the House well knows, the Government are dedicated to the rule of law and to the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, and this is a principle which we shall always strive to maintain.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty has deemed it proper by Proclamation, dated the 23rd day of May 1966 and made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Resolved,

That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 by Order dated 23rd May 1966 [copy of which was laid before the House on 23rd May], shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (CEREALS GUARANTEE PAYMENTS)

9.59 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James H. Hoy): I beg to move
That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 484), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following Motion,
That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1966, (S.I., 1966, No. 485), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I am agreeable if the House so wishes.

Mr. Hoy: The Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order deals with the moisture content of wheat qualifying for the guarantee payment. As the House is aware, this payment is made on the tonnage sold by growers and certified for payment by authorised wheat merchants. It is a basic requirement that to qualify for the payment the wheat must be millable. The definition of millable wheat which is set out in the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964, has a long history dating back to the pre-War Wheat Act. It has worked reasonably well over the years. The definition does not, however, include a specific reference to moisture content. This is a matter to which the Wheat and Rye Deficiency Payments Advisory Committee—on which both the farming and trade interests are represented—have been paying increasing attention in recent years.
Two years ago it was decided after consultation with the Committee, to introduce a voluntary code of practice to deal with moisture content. The effect of this has been that the merchants have not been certifying wheat as millable where the moisture content exceeds 18 per cent. We have now had experience of the operation of this code both in the favourable conditions of the 1964 harvest and the exceptionally difficult conditions of the 1965 harvest.
It has been shown that the 18 per cent. requirement works satisfactorily. After consultation with the Advisory Commit

tee, we have come to the conclusion that it should now be made mandatory. The Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order therefore supplements the present definition of millable wheat by providing as an additional requirement that the moisture content must not exceed 18 per cent.
This is the first main purpose of the Order before the House, and I must emphasise that it does no more than prescribe a maximum moisture content for the purposes of the guarantee arrangements. We consider that for these purposes the figure of 18 per cent. constitutes a reasonable maximum standard; in many cases, of course, the requirements of commercial users may call for wheat of a lower moisture content.
The second main purpose of the Order is to deal with the situation created by the growing commercial demand for rolled and flaked wheat. Wheat required for these purposes has to be processed damp; in this condition, it cannot be certified as millable either under the current or the amended definition of millable wheat. So long, therefore, as the guarantee payment is restricted to millable wheat, the position can arise where damp wheat suitable for rolling or flaking has first to be dried in order to qualify for the guarantee payment and then damped again so that it can be processed. So far as we know, this problem has not yet arisen on a significant scale. But, with the extension of the rolling and flaking processes to wheat, it could become increasingly serious as time goes on.
The Order therefore empowers the Minister to make a guarantee payment on wheat otherwise millable but with a moisture content in excess of 18 per cent. It will not therefore be necessary as at present for damp but otherwise millable wheat to be physically dried before it can qualify for deficiency payment. It will, of course, be necessary to take account of the excess moisture in the actual payment. This will be done by basing the payment on an adjusted weight. This weight will be calculated by reducing the gross weight in proportion to the excess of moisture over 18 per cent. subject to the operation of a tolerance which will be kept under review.
The detailed arrangements will be set out in amendments which we propose to


issue to the Cereals Deficiency Payments Scheme after consultation with the Wheat and Rye Deficiency Payments Advisory Committee. We are also taking the opportunity in the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order of correcting a purely technical error in the wording of the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964, relating to the operation of the standard quantity arrangements.
The purpose of the standard quantity mechanism is to reduce the guarantee payment in any year when production exceeds the standard quantity. The present wording gives the Minister power to make a larger payment in these circumstances. It has not, however, prevented him from operating the guarantee arrangements in the way intended. The Order now before the House puts the wording right by simply transposing the words "production" and "standard quantity".
The second Order, the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, which is consequential on the first, requires merchants to keep records of the moisture content of all parcels of wheat which they purchase. This provision is necessary for the proper administratior. of the Scheme, and will assist our auditors in their regular checks on transactions attracting guarantee payments.
We are anxious to keep to a minimum the burden on merchants of record-keeping. The requirements of the Order go no further than is directly necessary for our purposes. Thus, the House will note that where the moisture content of wheat as purchased does not exceed 18 per cent., the merchant need record no more than this. A precise figure of the moisture content is required only in the case where the wheat as purchased has a moisture content in excess of 18 per cent. It is only in that case that the exact figure is relevant to the calculation of the guarantee payment.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the House that the provisions of these two Orders, which are designed to come into operation at the beginning of the 1966-67 cereal year, will help to improve the guarantee arrangements. The modifications that are being introduced have emerged after full discussion on the Wheat and Rye Deficiency Payments Advisory

Committee and are supported by the Committee.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for giving that explanation of these Orders. We welcome them, although we have certain reservations, some of which I will mention.
I will deal, first, with that part of thet Order which relates to moisture content. I agree heartily that it is sensible to avoid the farce of having to dry wheat and then wet it again for the purpose of meeting the subsidy requirements in the rolling and flaking trade. I regret that a Question of mine about the size of this trade did not receive a more specific reply from the Minister.
How this new system will be brought in and what should be done under it is not as simple a matter as it may seem. The new system hangs on a revised definition of millable wheat and the hon. Gentleman explained that it should not exceed 18 per cent. in moisture content. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that for wheat over 18 per cent., the moisture content must be specified.
Does the Minister intend to use the form C.D.P.4 for the experimental scheme, the form which has been in use before? How does he intend to convert wheat over 18 per cent. back to the basis of wheat at 18 per cent.? It would appear that a part of this problem has not yet been considered, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that when one dries wheat, not only does one lose moisture but also a proportion of dry matter.
Does the Minister intend to evolve a formula to take account of the loss of dry weight, apart from the loss of moisture? I am sure that the Minister knows that, when one dries damp wheat there are considerable "dressing losses". Although the sample may look extremely clean in the wet state, it is surprising how much comes out of it in various forms of solid matter. Unless some formula is evolved for loss of dry weight, apart from moisture, an unfair advantage may be given to sellers of grain with over 18 per cent. moisture content.
One or two other problems and snags arise over the new moisture formula.
What does the Minister intend to do to solve the very thorny problem of sampling? There are very wide variations and they are rather serious. I ask about the fallibility of moisture meters in terms of the new moisture system because in the original code of practice, which was brought in two years ago, a ½ per cent. moisture content tolerance was allowed. I have seen three tests of moisture meters made by the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, an organisation with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. The tests are impartial and accurate and are done on a thoroughly scientific basis. The test on the Marconi meter, the one in most common use both on farms and in the merchanting trade, showed that over two years no fewer than 39 per cent. of the wheat readings were more than ½ per cent. out and 8 per cent, over the two years had an inaccuracy of more than 1 per cent.
This is a very disturbing background to the introduction of a moisture specification in the wheat subsidy system. This is the first occasion that moisture content has been officially recognised in this subsidy system. I believe there are great doubts on many sides, some of which I have tried to point out. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he intends to resolve these doubts so that we can support the Order, which is sensible, but there are wide disparities with which I hope he will deal.
I turn to another part of the amendments which raises rather serious problems. That is the intention to alter Article 4a of the Cereals (Guaranteed Payments) Order, 1964. This is a highly technical matter which concerns the level of guarantees in years when more than the standard quantity of wheat is produced. Unfortunately there was wrong wording in the original Order. It is the Minister's intention to amend that now. It is unfortunate that this was not spotted earlier. The Order was originally brought in by the previous Government three months before they left office and the amended Order, which we are debating, was not laid until the present Government had been in power for about 19 months. We must not try to put the blame on any one Government. This is an unfortunate matter which we must put right as best we can.
The old wording provided that an increased subsidy should be paid in years when more than the standard quantity was produced, which is exactly the opposite way to that which was intended and exactly the opposite way to that in which agreement was reached with the National Farmers' Unions. Certainly the effect of the wording was against the spirit of all the agreements.
Since the original Order was laid, the situation has been that for the 1964 harvest I calculate that the standard quantity has been exceeded by about 12 per cent. and in the 1965 harvest, which is now coming to the end of its selling period, roughly 20 per cent. more than the standard quantity was produced. I understand that the wheat subsidy during these two harvests and for these two crops has been paid in the way intended and agreed in the arrangements with the unions.
The fact is, though, that the original Order which the amendment tonight changes, directs the Government clearly to pay more than has been paid. The Minister said tonight that the original Order gives the Minister power to pay more than he has paid. I submit that the original Order gave the Minister a definite mandate to pay out rather more than he has done. It is a direction which the original Order gave to the Minister to pay out a larger sum, quite wrongly, in years when more than the standard quantity was produced. For the 1964 harvest I calculate that an extra £4·3 million should have been paid out in the wheat subsidy. On the basis of the projected expenditure in the Price Review White Paper this year of £14·1 million, on the extra crop which it is projected has been grown this year an extra £6·9 million should have been paid. That is a total for the two harvest periods of £11·2 million.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a mistake was made in the original Order? Does he then say that as a result of that mistake the Government ought to have paid out another £11 million?

Mr. Jopling: I think we all agree on both sides that a mistake was made in the original Order. What I am suggesting is that not enough money has been paid out for the 1964 harvest and the


intention is not to pay out as much money as the Government are mandated and directed to do by the Order for the 1965 crop.
What is to prevent an individual farmer from coming to the Ministry and saying, "You paid me out a lower guarantee for the 1964 harvest, which was completely against the terms of reference of the 1964 Order. I want more."? I should have thought that if a farmer were to sue for the difference he would have a very strong case in the courts. The Order clearly says that "the guaranteed payment shall be the amount …" By what right has the Minister paid out less than that provided for by the original Order? This matter must be cleared up at once. It is a matter of great urgency.
The Minister has two choices. He must either accept his obligation and pay up, or he must at once amend the original Order properly and so eliminate this retrospective liability which is hanging over t im. I do not suggest tonight—I am sure that the more responsible people in the industry would not suggest—that the Minister should pay up. This has been an unfortunate mistake. It ought to be cleared up as soon as possible because, as we are amending a wrong wording in the original Order, we may as well do the job properly.
I have dwelt, I am afraid at some length, on certain difficulties which I see in the amendments and on a serious matter which I think still arises in the original Order. I should be grateful if the Minister would pay attention to these points

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: As has been said, these two Orders are directed to the moisture content of wheat and what is millable wheat. They go together and both are important. It is a far cry from the days of old when a farmer had his ricks and threshed out his corn. He took his sample to the local merchant, and the merchant looked at the grain and tested it. A knowledge of grain and a knowledge of moisture was very much needed then. Today, we have modern methods of testing. But there was a relationship of trust between merchant, miller and farmer, and this continues to some extent today. I hope that, in spite of modern methods, driers, guaranteed

prices and these Orders tonight, that basis of trust and intimate knowledge of the trade will not be lost.
Moisture content is not everything. Knowledge of grain, of the type of grain. of the trade and of what the miller wants is still vital. However, these Orders represent a wise move, for it is desirable to have standards for all parties, for farmer, merchant and Government and the miller himself. I consider that 18 per cent. is about right. This figure has been accepted in the trade for some time, and I am sure that what is provided in the Order is right.
If anyone should know something about the problem of grain and moisture content, it is someone who comes from the wetter areas of the South-West. In the South-West we have a difficult climate to combat. One had only to watch some of the combines working in the difficult wet times last year, for example, to see what moisture content could mean. One did not need an instrument to test it; one could see the moisture running out. Yet good crops have been grown and will continue to be grown in this area.
It is vital for all concerned, nevertheless, that we have a fair and accurate test of grain. This is my main point. In certain areas it is difficult to secure what we call a dry sample. Considerable expense must be incurred to bring the moisture level down to the correct figure. It is sometimes difficult to produce what I call evenness of drying. It is easy to take a sample of grain, test it and say, "This is 16 or 17 per cent.". But is that the true picture? Is there evenness of drying throughout the sample? This is vital when money comes into it and when one has to consider also whether the wheat is millable. Is the Minister satisfied that all merchants have adequate and reliable instruments to test grain and that they know how to use them? This will be most important in the future if farmers are to have a fair result.
Farmers find it difficult enough in their own driers to get an accurate figure of moisture content. Average moisture content can show marked variations from one part of the machine to another and from one part of the discharge to another. I quote from a test carried out just recently. One drier tested showed a variation over the bulk of grain after


drying of the order of 0·5 per cent. and at certain places there were variations as high as 2 per cent. What is most significant about this test was that it was considered an exceptionally good machine for evenness of drying. One could quote from other test reports showing variations of over 1 per cent. in the moisture content of grain leaving the machine.
It will be appreciated, therefore, that scrupulous care must be exercised when sampling grain for moisture content if results of any accuracy are to be obtained. It is very important that we should have an accurate test and that it should be an average test throughout the whole bulk of the sample of grain. If it is not accurate, the farmer will suffer and his wheat will not be millable, and this has a serious financial aspect.
The question of keeping records arises on the second Order. I see that the merchants are to keep the records of moisture content. I am not certain whether the records should be kept of wheat that is over 18 per cent. or of all tests made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clear that point up. I suggest that it might be possible, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, for the merchant to send a little note to the farmer after the test, saying what the result is so that the record can be kept by both farmer and merchant.
With those few reservations and questions, I repeat that these are useful Orders; and another step forward in our marketing arrangements.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: As the House will realise, the Orders are of great importance to many areas of Scotland, particularly the East Coast, Berwickshire, the Lothians and Fife, and further north. But we again find ourselves in the position we were in on Monday in that no Scottish Minister is here to answer points on these Orders. We have been treated shabbily all week. It was only by our perseverence on Monday that the Minister of State gave us a visitation and eventually a statement. Tonight we are not even to have the pleasure of his company. On a subject so important to so many Scottish farmers, this is a shocking state of affairs.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), I agree that these are useful Orders. The only points we are raising are those of implementation. I, too, am concerned about the arrangements for taking moisture content. As has been pointed out, this can vary in different parts of a bin and there can be room for argument in this respect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can give more information on what type of moisture meter is to be used and what procedure is to be carried out when there is some dispute on moisture content. We have been shown that there can be error of up to ½per cent., which can be important in relation to deficiency payments.
Agreeing that these provisions work to the benefit of grain producers in general and in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will give more guidance and information on the procedure to be adopted, I support the Orders.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I do not claim any knowledge of cereals and want to limit my remarks to a comment on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the proposed amendment of Article 4(a) of the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964. It would be wrong to allow the hon. Gentleman to pass over this proposed Amendment by saying that it is merely a technical error that has not prevented the Minister from operating quite properly.
It may be a technical error in that it is, to a large extent, an error of wording, but when one looks at the effect of the error one cannot describe it as technical. I appreciate that the 1964 Order was presented by the last Government but it is right and proper, as the hon. Member will agree, that hon. Members should keep a questioning eye on the actions of Ministers and Ministries. The position is that whatever may have been the intention in the 1964 Order, the words in that Order clearly show that throughout the period and indeed until 1st July, the date on which the Amendment is proposed to be brought into force, the Minister is paying out on a basis which is wholly wrong in law.

Mr. Hoy: Mr. Hoy indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may shake his head, but I hope he will answer this point.
I am not making any point out of the absence tonight of a Law Officer from the Government Front Bench. I appreciate that the Attorney-General has had a very busy day in this House, but I suggest that it is a matter of far greater importance than the Minister has yet accepted.
I should like to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland who said that he could not see what would prevent any individual farmer from deciding to sue the Minister for the difference between what should have been paid under this Order and what has been paid during the perid since July, 1964. Subject to what the Minister may say in reply, I honestly do not see what possible defence the Ministry would have to any such action. The words are absolutely clear. The amount which has to be paid out, unfortunate though the error may be, is clearly shown to be that amount of the guarantee payment above the ordinary market price at the time—in effect, multiplied by the difference between the amount that has been produced over the standard quantity.
Surely, the Minister must realise that Ministries of the Crown are in no way able to avoid the effect of actions that may be brought against them. Am I not right in saying that the guarantee payments are on the basis of the contract between the individual farmer and the Ministry? If that be so, since under Section 30 of the Limitation Act the time in which anybody may sue the Ministry for breach of contract extends for six years, if we allow this Amendment to go through in the form proposed, for a period of a further four years the Ministry is at any time in danger of being sued by any farmer for an underpayment under this Order.
Therefore, I ask the Minister not to say that this is merely a technical error. It is not a technical error. It is an error which involves, as we have heard, a sum of about 11 million. It cannot be said that that error has not prevented the Order from being operated properly. The

Order was operated as it was intended to be operated, but wholly contrary to its wording. The Minister is faced with one or two alternatives. Either he must bring in an Amendment which, however much the House may hate retrospective legislation, is retrospective to the date of the 1964 Order, or he must accept the fact that he is legally liable to pay out the farmers on the wording of the Order. The Order says that the guarantee payment shall be a particular amount.
I have raised this matter because it is important, and though the Ministry may say that it is a technical error, it may well lead it into difficulty in the coming years. While appreciating that at this late hour one cannot expect to have a considered legal reply from the Ministry, I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to look at the matter carefully and to decide whether or not, in view of the matters that have been raised, some other Amendment, regrettable as it may be, is necessary.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: This is a very serious matter and I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has said. I had not spoken to him or to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) this evening, but when I looked at the Order, I was surprised by the phrase reversing the words in paragraph 2 and when I read the explanation saying that the Order also made minor Amendments to the description of the manner in which the guaranteed price was to be calculated, my curiosity was aroused. I have since spent some time in the Library looking up the Orders. It is a labyrinth, of course, but in the end I found the relevant Order and it seemed quite clear that even if there were a mistake, the mistake itself was an incontrovertible fact and established the formula which had to be applied.
It would be advisable to put the all-important paragraph on the record. It is paragraph 4 of the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964—Statutory Instrument 1964/840—and it reads as follows:
If in any year the annual production of wheat or barley—
(a) is not less than the standard quantity the guarantee payment shall be the amount, if any, by which the guaranteed price exceeds the target indicator price, or the


average realised price, whichever is the higher, after that amount has been divided by the proportion that the standard quantity bears to the annual production.
It so happens that in each of the last two cereal years the annual production has exceeded the standard quantity and in each case the market value, according to the last Price Review, has exceeded the target indicator price.
The fraction by which the deficiency payment has to be divided for the purpose of reducing the payment, as was intended where annual production exceeded the standard quantity, has, because of the mistaken expression, been given upside down. In 1965, the standard quantity for wheat was 3·4 million tons and, according to the 1966 Price Review, annual production was 4·1 million tons.
The fraction as intended in the Order unamended would be the standard quantity above the annual production, which is 3·4 million over 4·1 million. But the resulting quotient when dividing by a fraction which is less than unity is, of course, larger than the sum originally divided. That is the difficulty and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland, who has carried these calculations further than I have, reckons that the farmers under the Order as it stands could claim a considerable amount of extra money.
What is significant is that this is against a background of a Price Review which was bitterly resented by cereal growers. In 1965-66 there was a reduction in the guarantee price and the farmers felt that they were seriously under-recouped. We are therefore in the position that, this mistake appearing—and I should like to know how it was found, for I take it that it was not found as a result of a farmer claiming—it would be open to some growers to make a claim personally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn has suggested, and nothing that the National Farmers' Union might wish to do or that we in opposition might wish to do could alter that position.
The Minister said in opening that the present form of the Order gave the Minister of Agriculture, and I suppose the Secretary of State for Scotland, power to make larger payments than were intended. It has already been pointed

out that the wording of the paragraph appears to be mandatory and I ask him where in these Orders we can find any power that the Minister may have to modify the mandatory requirements that seems to be laid on him by Article 4(a).
Unless he has that power and has exercised it, we seem to be in the difficult position that over this period a farmer could make this claim. I have come to the same conclusions as my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn, but I must repeat that I have had no conversation with him. This new Order does not rectify the position at present—it only does so in the future—and we are left with this very strange position in which farmers may come and say, "We do not understand this. Can we make a claim?" It may be that my own farm manager, who is not very pleased with the prices for 1966, may ask if we cannot get a bit more back.
We certainly do not want that position to obtain generally, but the danger remains. This Order does not correct the position as far as the past is concerned, although I see that it is signed by no less than three Cabinet Ministers and has the signatures of two Lords Commissioners attached. It cannot be said that this Order has not been scrutinised at the highest level, even if it remains an incomplete answer to what is at law, a very real difficulty which would obviously require further action by the Government.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I do not wish to follow my hon. Friends for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) through the labyrinths of this legal difficulty. In my area, which is one of the finest wheat-growing districts in the world, we should very much welcome any addition that may come as a result of the discovery of a mistake in the Orders. We have felt for some time that cereal growing has been right down on the bottom and that our prices were not good enough.
This will be welcomed so far as the practical side of moisture definition is concerned. The Amendment is very necessary. In the town in my constituency in which I live there is one of the largest mills in the country which makes biscuit meal. I do not know the intricacies of milling, but perhaps the Minister could


tell me whether biscuit flour comes within this rolling and flaking definition, to which he was referring.
Perhaps he can give me some information, which would be welcomed by farmers, about what effect variety of wheat has upon the moisture content. Another question which is relevant is what effect different types and quantities of manuring have upon moisture content. These matters will be important to farming in future and I should very much welcome any information which the Minister can give.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I rise only for a few moments, because my hon. Friends have adequately exposed the points on which we want clarification. I want to make one serious protest, and to take up the point about the error. My protest relates to the fact that, very much as on Monday night, apparently one Minister responsible for the Ministry of Agriculture is dealing with Orders which apply to Scotland as well.
On Monday night, we made a protest. It was not a frivolous protest, but one which was strongly felt. I am sure that I say this in the presence of someone who is sympathetic to it, because the Joint Parliamentary Secretary represents a Scottish constituency and has some knowledge of feelings in Scotland on these matters. Really, it is not good enough to have no Scottish Minister present to deal with points raised by hon. Members concerned with local Scottish interests.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to represent to his right hon Friend the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that a Scottish Minister should be present when Orders dealing with agriculture come forward. I hope that we shall not have to make the protest again. I thought that our protest on Monday night would be sufficient, and I am seriously concerned to see that no attempt has been made to meet a very proper request by the House.
When I was Parliamentary Secretary, it was always the practice to have a junior Scottish Minister present when such Orders were before the House. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that if a similar situation arises in future, he will find serious difficulty put in the way of his getting the Orders through.
I come now to the matter first drawn attention to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), which was elucidated further by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill); namely, the error which has emerged in the original Order to which this amending Order refers. I accept that the error took place during a period of Conservative government, and I make no point about that at all. However, the Order ought to have been put right at the first oppor. tunity when it was first discovered, and I would ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when it was discovered.
There is also the relevant point which has been made so clearly that an amendment made in the form given in the Order is inadequate because it does not deal with retrospective aspects. For anyone to demand retrospective legislation in the House is almost unheard of, and I should not normally dream of doing so. And I would make it clear to the hon. Gentleman before he replies that it is not our intention to claim that farmers may wish to take advantage of what is an error. It has been referred to tonight as a technical error. In the wording of the Explanatory Note, it is a minor error. Both expressions are misleading. It is a grave error which should he put right so as to make it clear beyond peradventure that there is no question of any claims resulting in advantage to farmers who might choose to bring a case in the courts.
I see no way in which the present Order can be read to cover the previous two harvests. Unless it can be, it should be withdrawn and reworded, or an amending Order should be brought forward at the earliest opportunity to cover the point substantively.
I am surprised at the words used by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the words in the Explanatory Note itself, It is a pity that it was not clearly brought forward and dealt with more definitely.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: I shall deal with the question of wrong payment a little later if I may, because I should like to say a word or two more about it. Perhaps I might deal first with the technical point. The hon. Gentleman the Member for


Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) wanted to know what advice we can give. We are always delighted to do this, but this Order relates to the moisture content of wheat at the time of certification. It does not deal with its eventual use or the farmer's husbandry practices, and therefore I could not quite understand where the hon. Gentleman was getting with that point.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Scotland should have been here. It is true that there are two Scottish Members present, one on either side of the House, but the hon. Member for Dumfries had no contribution to make to the debate. [Interruption.] I listened carefully and made a note of what he said. He raised the question of the moisture content, and I agree that it is important, but this matter was raised by nearly everyone who spoke. If I may say so, I think that I am as competent as anyone to say a word about Scotland, and this Order applies to cereal production wherever it takes place.
A number of questions have been asked about moisture content and moisture meters. I am a little surprised that producers and merchants have some doubts about this. We have had two years' experience of the use of moisture meters. They have been used under the voluntary code of practice, and the arrangements have worked satisfactorily. I think that most farmers and merchants would agree that this is so, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West would have been the first to say so if it was not. These meters have been used after consultation with all concerned. The Government did not say, "You have to do this", and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly that this has been done after consultation with the Wheat and Rye Deficiency Payments Advisory Committee, which includes representatives of both the farmers and the trade. We are satisfied that we can make this moisture content mandatory, because we have the agreement of all the parties concerned. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will be prepared to accept that.
The hon. Member for Torrington asked about records. As I said when I moved the Order, the merchant has to keep an

accurate and precise figure if it is over 18 per cent. If it is below that, he merely has to keep a record that the moisture content does not exceed 18 per cent., so to that extent I hope that I have made it clear that the point is covered.
Questions were asked about how this moisture content was taken into account, and I shall try to make the position as clear as I can. I hope that I can make it a little clearer than the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) did when talking about the technical errors. He gave us a long algebraic exercise, which, in the end, amounted to the fact that when it was first in the Order it was 9 over 10, instead of 10 over 9. I shall deal with that later. I merely use it as an example to show that this is a little difficult, and if it cannot be absorbed now, those concerned will be able to read it later.
The calculation of guarantee payment on wheat not millable solely by reason of excess moisture is on the following basis: In making a payment on wheat which is not millable solely by reason of its moisture content exceeding 18 per cent., it will be necessary to take account of the excess moisture. This will be done by calculating an adjusted weight on which the guarantee payment will be made. For the purpose of calculating this adjusted weight we shall make a percentage deduction for the excess moisture at the rate of 1 1/5 times the excess over 18 per cent.
This calculation will be subject to a tolerance of ½ per cent. on the moisture content recorded by the merchant which will be applied automatically by the Department. The reducing factor which I have mentioned has been in use under the voluntary code of practice, and we think that it is reasonable to continue it in its present form. This proved workable and reasonable, and we think it should be continued. But we shall wish to review the operation of the tolerance with the interests concerned in the light of experience. We would proceed to continue to look at the question to see if any improvement could be made.
The hon. Member for Dumfries raised a question—

Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend did not raise anything at all.

Mr. Hoy: I do not know what has gone wrong with the hon. Member for Torrington. I shall give a reply to the points he raised. The hon. Member for Dumfries asked what would be the position if a dispute arose between the farmer and the merchant. The experience we have had with the voluntary code of practice over the past two years has shown that the assessment of moisture content normally presents no difficulty for the growers and merchants, but we shall have to provide in the Scheme for cases where the exact moisture content of a parcel of wheat may be in dispute. This will include a procedure for referring samples to analysts approved by the local wheat committees. This is how we propose to deal with that situation if it arises, but we have had no difficulty in this respect so far.
I now turn to the technical error which was made in the original order. I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Westmorland made the point again. I thought that I had said explicitly that power had been given to the Minister to pay out more than was necessary.

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend was right about that, because this is a misuse of words. It is not a question of power being given; it is a question of compulsion being laid on the Minister, which is wholly different from giving him power, which would be permissive.

Mr. Hoy: All I was saying was that that was what I had said. The hon. Member said that I had said it, and I am not denying it. It was a technical error. Everybody admits that. It was made by the previous Government when they drafted the Order. If the words had been reversed, as I suggested to begin with, the error would not have arisen. This is what we are putting right tonight.
Article 5 (1) and (2) of the 1964 Order provide that any payment made under Article 4 may be made subject to such conditions as the Minister determines, and the conditions are laid down in the Cereals Deficiency Payments Scheme, which sets out the detailed arrangements for the payment of a smaller amount per unit when production exceeds the standard quantity.
So we have not been paying less per unit than we were bound to, because this question lay with the Minister. That is

why I said that it had been a technical error. That was the basis of the Scheme. I took great care about this. I was asked how we discovered the error. When a new Order had to come in we naturally looked at what had happened before, and it was then found that our predecessors had made this mistake. I am advised that the Minister had this power to modify the payment, but we thought we would put it right. We did not seek to mislead the House in this respect. This is what is honestly felt. This is the opinion of my Department. I do not profess to have tremendous legal knowledge, but I took care before I came to the Box to find out if this was so, and I am assured that it is.
It was because of that that I stuck to the original words and said that it was a technical error arising from the previous Order. I hope that hon. Members will accept this not only as my opinion but also that of the best advice that I could have in the matter.

Mr. Godber: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is making a very important statement. He is now hanging the issue on Article 5(1), and is trusting to the words:
… subject to such conditions as he may from time to time with the approval of the Treasury specify …
The words "such conditions" were surely never intended to cover this issue. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that legal reference to "such conditions" provides a cover against a mandatory provision which says "… shall be the amount …"?
Surely these conditions relate to the conditions in which payments are made, and not to the percentage which is specifically laid down? I do not pretend to legal knowledge of these matters, but I cannot believe that these words "subject to such conditions" can possibly override the mandatory provision of Article 4(a). I ask the hon. Gentleman most seriously to have this matter re-examined by the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. Hoy: I have said that payment is made under Article 5 and that these conditions specify a smaller payment when production exceeds the standard quantity. I am advised that, because of that, we have therefore not been paying less than we were bound to. I took great care to inquire into this, and that


is why I am not inclined to change the original wording.

Mr. Jopling: Will the hon. Gentleman give the undertaking that he will look at this matter again, and consult the Law Officers of the Crown, as my right hon. Friend has asked him to do? We on this side of the House feel that this is a very serious matter, one which could lead the Government into untold trouble in the months ahead, and I do not believe that it could be examined too carefully.

Mr. Hoy: I did not think that this was leading the Government into untold trouble until the hon. Gentleman threatened to get the farmers to apply for £11 million. The hon. Gentleman was saying that, as a result of a mistake made by the Conservative Government, they might saddle the present Government with £11 million. If there were the slightest doubt, of course I should check. I have checked this, but if it can be re-checked, I shall certainly look at it, because nobody wants a mistake to continue. I should be delighted to bring in another Order and say that the mistake of our predecessors was even worse than I had thought and that I wish to put it right.

Mr. Godber: Is it not extraordinary that, having been in office for 20 months, the hon. Gentleman did not observe it before?

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Mr. J. E. B. Hill rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think that the Minister has sat down.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved,

That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order, 1966, (S.I. 1966, No. 484), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.

Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1966, (S.I., 1966, No. 485), copy laid on 3rd May, approved.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (EGG PRICES)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move,
That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 479), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
This Order gives effect to the decision at this year's Annual Price Review, announced in the White Paper following that Review, to postpone for two years the reduction in the Exchequer's contribution under the loss-sharing arrangements set out in the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1963.
As the House may recall, the 1963 Order put into effect the changes in the guarantee arrangements for eggs sold through the Board announced at that year's Review. Briefly, the arrangements are that the basic rate of subsidy paid to the Board is the difference between the guaranteed price and the indicator price. This indicator price is the price which the Board might reasonably be expected to obtain from a market which is neither over- nor under-supplied. Both the guaranteed price and the indicator price are determined at the Review.
This basic rate of subsidy is, however, subject to certain adjustments. One of these is made when the average market price achieved by the Board falls short of the indicator price. It is this arrangement with which we are concerned tonight.
When the new arrangements were introduced in 1963, it was recognised that it would be desirable to phase in the new system over a period of years. It was, therefore, agreed that the Government would continue to pay a proportion, although a proportion diminishing over the years, of any deficiency between the indicator price and the Board's actual selling price. The 1963 Order specified the Exchequer's proportion of any such deficiency as 60 per cent. for 1963-64, 50 per cent. for 1964-65, 40 per cent. for 1965-66 and so on. After the end of March, 1969, the Exchequer's liability would have ceased. It was agreed, however, in 1963 that the working of the new guarantee arrangements would be reviewed during the third year of their


operation. This was done, in consultanon with the farmers' representatives, as part of the discussions preceding this year's Annual Review.
The House will recall that there has been an important development in egg marketing since the new arrangements were introduced in 1963. Discussions took place between the Government, the Farmers' Unions and the Board to consider what could be done to encourage the more orderly marketing of eggs through packing stations and thereby to bring supply and demand into better balance.
My right hon. Friend announced in the House on 19th May, 1965, that the Board would introduce, on 3rd April, 1966, a system of contract marketing for eggs, designed to promote these objectives. It was recognised, during the review of the guarantee arrangements to which I have referred, that it would inevitably take some time for this new contract marketing scheme to get established and start to exert its full influence on the market.
The Government therefore made a decision designed to assist the Board to stabilise producers' returns during the period before the contract arrangements could influence market prices effectively. This was to postpone for two years the reduction from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the Exchequer's share of the deficiency. Under the 1963 Order, this reduction would have been made this year.
This means that during 1966-67 and 1967-68 the Government will continue to meet 40 per cent. of any deficiency, as they did in 1965-66. In 1968-69, by which time the Board's new arrangements should have got fully into their stride, phasing out will be resumed.
The change made by the Order is in the interests of egg producers. It is supported by the Farmers' Unions, and I accordingly commend it to the House.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am grateful again to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for explaining the change made in the Order. It is a relatively simple one in its wording, which covers a highly complicated Order. As the Minister has said, it postpones for

two years the reduction in the loss-sharing liability by the Government when the realised price for eggs becomes less than the indicator price.
On the face of it, I suppose, the Minister, as he has done, would make out that this is rather generous. The House must, however, consider the Order against the general background of the last Price Review, when we had a reduction of the indicator price from 3s. 2d. to 3s. 1d. per dozen and for the second year running we had a reduction in the guaranteed price, this year of 1·6d. per dozen. Therefore, the Government should not be allowed to get away tonight by making out that this is a generous and open-ended amendment.
The reason the Ministry gives for making the amendment is that it will help the Board to stabilise returns before the contract arrangements can effectively influence market prices. Certainly, my hon. Friends and I welcome all efforts by the Government and the Board to improve marketing, and it is remarkable how eager farmers are to play their part in improving marketing in terms of contracting. Indeed, the figures which were given yesterday for contracts in cereal marketing show this, for in the first year of the scheme, from the very beginning, 40 per cent. of the wheat crop and 30 per cent. of the barley crop were sold on contract. That is a remarkable testimony to the alacrity with which farmers take up new ideas for the marketing of their produce. I hope that the farmers will take up the egg contracts as eagerly as they have the cereal ones.
The background to the egg industry is one of increased efficiency and visibly increased productivity. However, there is, I believe, still a place for the ordinary farmer in the egg industry and I do not consider that there will be room for only the giants and multi-million bird units. Indeed, the ordinary farmers with small and medium sized flocks will have most to contribute and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give the latest progress report on the Board's activities., particularly in the setting up of contracting arrangements. This information would be of great interest to the House, particularly in view of the figures given yesterday showing the rise of contracting in cereals.
I was somewhat amazed at the Parliamentary Secretary's speech because he did not speak about the future of the industry. When the original Order was introduced two years ago—which this Order amends—his right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
It is restrictionism … I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister to accept that this Order is a stop-gap measure and no more".
He went on:
There will have to be a new approach, and it is necessary that the Minister, in his negotiations now with the producers and the National Farmers' Union, adopt a wider approach rather than the policy of restriction which is typified by the Order".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1963; Vol. 676, c. 1457.]
I have looked through the OFFICIAL REPORT at all the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Government about eggs since they came to power in October, 1964. I cannot find anything to show that they have done anything in the past 20 months to implement the sort of pie in the sky which the right hon. Gentleman was extolling when in opposition. The Parliamentary Secretary must tell us where the Government stand on this matter.
Will he say where they stand, or is this another example of the Government's double-talk, which involves grandiose idealism in opposition and then, when they come to power, they merely extend a scheme which they criticised so much earlier and follow Conservative policy as they find it?

Mr. Hoy: That was a terrible peroration. The hon. Gentleman has not even realised that the election is over. I assure him that his comments will have no effect whatever on the voters. It was not worthy of him. I had meant to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, when I spoke first, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. After that peroration, I feel bound to temper my congratulations. However, I do congratulate him.
I did not deal with the whole of egg production, because this is merely an amending Order. We are not discussing the future of the industry in that sense. But while the hon. Gentleman refers to postponing this for two years, I wonder

whether he has considered what would have happened had we not taken this action. I appreciate that he is anxious to have some figures. I understand from the Board that producers responsible for over 80 per cent. of the Board's throughput have already signed contracts. Applications are still coming in, so on the figures so far everything seems to be going reasonably well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 479), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (AGREEMENT WITH SWEDEN)

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sweden) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd May, an Order be made in the form of that draft.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: After the discussion on cereals and eggs, I feel that I am the coffee, but it is not quite breakfast time, and I promise to be brief.
It is worth looking for a moment at this Order partly for what it does and partly for what it portends. It is, in fact, the second double taxation of income Order to be debated since last year's Finance Act when its massive changes in taxation became law. Like the first, relating to Canada, which was debated on 14th February, it also is only an interim measure and one of very limited significance. I draw the attention of the House to what it contains. It is just a small further move along the road on which Section 64 of the Finance Act, 1965, set us.
The effect of the Order is to limit the right to credit for underlying tax to cases of companies with a 10 per cent. holding in foreign capital. As a quid pro quo—and obviously in all these negotiations the other country must have something—for the extra tax levied here


by the Chancellor on dividends arising in Sweden, that country is now given an unrestricted right to levy tax on a dividend payable to Swedish companies by British companies. Hitherto, this right to levy tax was restricted in a number of ways by the main Convention. In other words, we have an admittedly small but further restriction on double tax relief for income passing between the two countries.
To that extent it is a retrograde step, but I recognise that it flows inevitably from the previous one we debated at great length last year and this is certainly riot the time to debate the general merits of that. This Order is very small fry. It is a very limited Order and there are much bigger fish swimming in the water and coming to the surface. On the same day on which this Order was laid before the House we had the Order relating to America, which I have no doubt will be brought forward soon after the Whitsun Recess. It is one of considerable importance. It may well set a pattern for double taxation conventions in future. It is difficult to believe that the Government would resist a proposal to have at least half a clay to debate the merits of that Order.
There are also in the pipeline Orders relating to Switzerland, New Zealand and Belginm, about which Press statements have been made, and 65 or 70 further conventions which are required to be made in the light of legislation passed last year. When one reads the list set out in an Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), one realises that a truly formidable task faces the Inland Revenue in negotiating these Orders. They are important. They represent a substantial change in the pattern of international investment and the incomes that flow from international investment. I do not think that the House should let them go past without recognising what has happened.

11.21 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I am always fascinated by these discussions on Double Taxation Relief Orders, because I am never asked any questions which in any way relate to the contents of the Orders. No doubt this is the result of the extremely lucid language in which they are composed.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said that he thought that the Order was a further retrograde step down the paths into which the country was led in last year's Finance Bill. May I very briefly remind the hon. Member and the House in what direction this step is being taken. It is as a result of the change from our previous taxation system to the Corporation Tax system. Before the Corporation Tax, the position was that we did not draw any distinction in our taxation system between company and personal taxation. Consequently, the Income Tax which was paid by a company on its profits was treated the same as the Income Tax paid by shareholders on their dividends. The Income Tax deducted from the dividend was retained by the company as a sort of set-off against the tax which it paid on the profits.
We, in a woolly-minded way, extended this confusion of company and personal taxation to the taxation systems of other countries, with the result that we gave credit and relief for the underlying tax which had been paid in other countries when we were dealing with the taxation of dividends remitted to this country. We not only gave relief for the withholding tax paid on the dividends. We gave relief for the Corporation or other underlying tax paid in the overseas country.
Now that we have followed the example of most civilised countries by adopting the Corporation Tax system and separate company and personal taxation, it would be quite anomalous for us to continue to give relief for the overseas underlying tax on portfolio investment. To do so would be to put United Kingdom investors in overseas companies in a more favourable position than United Kingdom investors in United Kingdom companies or overseas investors in those overseas companies.
It was the withdrawal of this privileged position for overseas investors that led to so many complaints by overseas investors which were so faithfully and assiduously echoed by hon. Members opposite in the long nights of the Finance Bill. We heard a last murmur of those same complaints from the hon. Member in his remarks about a retrograde step. This is a further step in the very healthy development of our taxation system.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sweden) Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd May, an Order be made in the form of that draft.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's House-hold.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Bishop's Stortford, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said that after the cereals and the eggs he felt like the coffee, but no breakfast is complete without the bacon.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Post Office and of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or mainly derived from moneys

provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer:

To consist of Eighteen Members:

Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Bob Brown, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Bernard Floud, Mr. David Griffiths, Mr. John Homer, Sir Donald Kaberry, Colonel Lancaster, Mr. Ron Lewis, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Christopher Norwood, Mr. Brian O'Malley, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Harry Randall, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, and Mr. David Webster:

So much of the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in the last Session of the last Parliament as relates to the Post Office, together with the relevant Appendices, referred to the Committee:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to adjourn from place to place:

Power to report from time to time:

Five to be the Quorum:

Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to adjourn from place to place:

Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:

Power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Commitee.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Orders of the Day — CARAVAN SITE, WELWICK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hiley (Pudsey): I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for detaining you at this late hour, but I feel that if I can help one of my constituents and do something for his happiness while, at the same time, doing nothing to the disadvantage of anyone else in the county, I shall have done a great service.
Mr. Taylor, my constituent, took a caravan at Welwick in East Yorkshire about four years ago. The farmer in whose orchard the caravan was placed was a good friend of his, and he understood what Mr. Taylor's position was. Mr. Taylor had been seriously ill for a long time, and it was felt that, if he could find a place away from everything where he could have some real peace and quiet, this would make a great contribution towards his recovery. For this reason, the farmer was glad to make it possible for Mr. Taylor to put the caravan in his orchard. It was not the farmer's intention to develop a caravan site in his own farm. In fact, he was particularly concerned that there should be no dogs or other sources of inconvenience associated with the caravan in the orchard.
Arrangements were made in that way, and, as a result of his frequent visits there, Mr. Taylor did ultimately recover. But it is still necessary for him to have a place where he can rest. He would not be interested in caravanning as such. He just wanted to have a place where he could recuperate. The idea of going on to a caravan site would not appeal to him. As I say, he is in no sense a ca ravanner.
I have here a plan of the farm and the position of the caravan, but I think that I can describe the situation fairly adequately so that the House can understand it. The entrance to the farm is between some out-buildings on the left and the farm house on the right. Farther to the right of the house is a large garden, which is at the side of the secondary road which leads only down to the river. It is protected from the orchard by an unusually high fence, higher than the top

of the caravan. Further behind the house are other farm buildings.
Because of the hedge and the farm buildings, the caravan is not visible from the immediate frontage of the house and farm. One has to go a considerable distance down the secondary road before any part of the caravan can be seen from the road at all. Indeed, when the inspector from the local council came to examine the caravan, he could not find it and had to seek the assistance of the farmer to find out exactly where it was.
I appreciate that an indiscriminate number of caravans cannot be allowed in the countryside. Many even today are eyesores. But I suggest that this is not such a case. My constituent has grown fond of the place. As we say in Yorkshire, it does him good to go there fairly regularly. There is no access at all to the orchard by the public. Indeed, the caravan cannot be moved until harvest time, because the only way it can be moved from the orchard is over a ploughed field.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to disturb this man, who has enjoyed the peace of this countryside for four years without doing any harm to anybody else. It seems a pity that, because of some technical point, my constituent should have to remove his caravan after all this time.
I know there are some weaknesses in human nature. I believe that another individual at some time put a caravan on the roadside not very far away which obviously ought not to have been there. It seems that the man concerned, having been told by the authority about it, merely used the argument, "If I am not allowed to remain here, why should someone else have one on the other side of the hedge?" I do not think that the local authority or the Minister should be prepared to take notice of a complaint of that kind.
I do not see any point in labouring the case. I have explained honestly and fairly the situation of the caravan. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman that it is no eyesore. Indeed, it cannot be seen from the road. I hope that the Minister can give some encouragement, even if it is not possible for him to vary the decision he has already made. Looking at the plan, I find that,


if the caravan were moved a few feet, it would still be invisible for a long distance down the road.
I would like to have some encouragement to take back to my constituent. I would like to be able to tell him that if he moves the caravan a little further away the Minister, as a result of representations made in this House, might be prepared to look more favourably at his application.

11.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) has done his constituent a great service. For all the faults of this House—and there are many of them, as we know—one of its virtues is that individual complaints of this kind, trivial as they may seem to other people, but terribly important to the person concerned, can be raised on the Floor of the House by an hon. Member and a Minister has to get up and answer.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the trouble he has taken on behalf of his constituent. Whichever way the result goes, the hon. Member cannot be blamed for not trying very hard for the individual concerned. This case has thrown the spotlight on an activity of my Department which seldom attracts public interest, except in the occasional report in the local press.
The administration of planning appeals is an important activity of the Department, and it is well that it should come to the attention of the House from time to time. Between 8,000 and 9,000 appeals are decided every year by the Minister, and it is hardly surprising that some of them should cause heart-burning from time to time. Let me say at once that in this appeal, as in all others, the Minister's decision is final and the case cannot be re-opened. Nevertheless, I am glad of the opportunity to explain the reasoning behind the decision.
I should like to say a word about general caravan policy. Our general approach is to encourage the concentration of caravan sites at suitable points instead of allowing them to be scattered over a wider area. It is particularly necessary to

avoid an excessive number of caravan sites on or very close to the coastline. A booklet called "Caravan Parks—Location, Layout, Landscape" was issued by the Department in 1962, giving general advice about the location, landscape treatment, layout and equipment. Circular No. 46/60, which followed the passing of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, gave general advice on the control of caravan sites conferred on local authorities and mentioned in paragraph 26 that single caravans or very small groups of caravans could often be accommodated satisfactorily, and more easily than larger caravan sites, in secluded places where they would be screened by trees, hedgerows or buildings.
The appeal by Mr. F. G. W. Taylor was dealt with on the basis of written statements and a visit to the site by one of the Ministry's inspectors. Certainly the site complied with many of the requirements for a single caravan. It was, as the hon. Gentleman said, placed in a farm and was screened on one side by farm buildings and on the west by an 8-ft. hedge. There was, however, open land to the south and east from which it was visible. Mains water and electricity were available but not main drainage.
The road in which the farm lay was a cul-de-sac and the caravan did not occupy a promiment position in the countryside. It had been on this site for three years without planning permission, and Mr. Taylor claimed that as it had given no offence during that period he should be allowed to retain it for holiday purposes as he had done in the past. It may be thought that this was a case in which permission might well have been given, particularly as the caravan was already in position. But the fact that people sometimes neglect to obtain planning permission which they require is really no justification for granting permission retrospectively if it would have been refused in the first place. To do so would give them an unfair advantage over others who do not flout the requirements of planning control. The appeal was, therefore, dealt with strictly on its merits.
The local planning authority had stated in the development plan that it was essential to control the numerous shacks, bungalows and caravans in


Holderness, many of which dated from the time when people had sought somewhere to live after the air raids on Hull. The indiscriminate siting of holiday accommodation of various kinds with little regard for the landscape had created one of the main planning problems in the East Riding. The planning authority's policy was to concentrate caravans into selected sites and to remove isolated caravans from the district. They pointed out that a site was being provided at Easington only four miles to the south-east and another already existed at Kilnsea, 6½ miles to the southeast.
I fully appreciate the desire of the appellant Mr. Taylor to site his caravan where he could have seclusion. This is a natural desire which is shared by very many other people. This gives rise to applications for caravan sites which individually are harmless, as indeed, Mr. Taylor's site was. The trouble is that too many sites of this sort completely transform an area and pepper the countryside with caravans which have a marked effect on the amenity of the district. Holderness, and particularly its coastline, is a valuable holiday area and the local authority is right to seek to preserve its amenities and deserves support in that aim. Opinions are bound to differ about ministerial decisions on planning appeals, but I think that in this case the right decision was taken.
I should like to assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the decision was certainly not taken lightly and that Mr. Taylor's representations were taken fully into account. As I have said, the appeal cannot be reopened, but it is always possible for an unsuccessful appellant to make a further planning application to the local authority. If that is refused,

there is the right of appeal to the Minister, but it is only fair to add that the Minister is not. likely to change hits decision unless new circumstances can be shown which justify the change.
If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, it seems that Mr. Taylor intends to resite his caravan. I am not sure where, and it would not be for me to find out at this state, as on appeal the matter would come before us again in a judicial capacity. But, if that is so, he would have the right to apply to the local planning authority for permission and, if refused, could put the matter before us again. I give the hon. Gentleman every assurance that we shall treat it on its merits.
I say again to the hon. Gentleman that the debate has been useful in drawing attention to a duty continually carried out in my Ministry which we seek to discharge with humanity and understanding at all times. While recognising why he has raised the matter on the Adjournment tonight, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that we went into this application very thoroughly, but, for the reasons I have given, disqualified it. That does not deny Mr. Taylor the right to make a further application if the circumstances change.

Mr. Hiley: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said and I am rather encouraged by the information he has given. I feel that the new siting of the caravan will be such that the planning authority at any rate will be prepared to accede to the application on this occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.